User talk:Nfitz/Archive

Welcome!

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

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

Missing Episodes

Hi, I am a bit put out at your rejection of my Dr.Who missing episodes article. A lot of the information comes from members of the Restoration Team, who, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to feed me information that they later disputed. Whether this information is right or not, I leave to you to judge. The information comes from Steve Roberts (well known in fan circles as someone who uses people and then rejects them when they have fulfilled their usefullness to him - perhaps indicative of the exchange between himself and Ian Levine on the RT forum. In the early 1990s they were keen to pass bootleg tapes amongst themselves) and Peter Finklestone (someone who is still revered in fan circles even though he was struck off the medical register for filming a lady and a child on his lavatory and who broke a promise to me to provide restored video and audio dubs after I gave him Graham Strong's address - of course, I am conveniently air brushed out of the story at this point, maybe because the Restoration Team wanted the glory of finding "pristine audios" to themelves)

DrPaulLee 00:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

i read your comment on the GH avisualagency AfD page and saw that you have extensive experience on here. i am trying to contribute to the GH article but everyone on the discussion page keeps giving me the wrong advice. most insisted that i have to prove notability, then they said that it was wrong to list articles about the collective. i don't know who to believe as they all keep leading me astray. if you could please offer me any advice on how to make the article better or make any adjustments yourself i would sincerely appreciate it. even if it does get deleted, at least i will have known that i tried my hardest to make it the best i could given the limited time frame. thanks so much.

for editing reference, these lead to some other wikipedia articles i feel are similar: art collective, artist collective, List of graphic designers

Inspectorpanther 16:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polls polls polls

Hey nfitz, thanks for the info. I apologize about the dates, I had thought they were actually released the day that CTV had them on air. I did not know they were from the day before. Thanks for the clarification. Snickerdo 03:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard shortcuts

There's an answer to your question at the village pump. Cheers! — Catherine\^talk 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1921 election

Per your suggestion at the 2006 election talk page, I've added a section explaining the majority/minority situation following the 1921 election. I hope this is what you were looking for. - Jord 16:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

Hi there! Thanks for your note; understood. However, I think the TfD – without any prior discussion – is flawed for numerous reasons (which I've indicated at its TfD entry) and necessitated my actions. Mea culpa. In any event, here's a pickle: what now if we want to edit it? Anyhow, thanks again. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note; I'm going to update the template later. I'd have to disagree with you on one point, though: isn't it the result of ... depression? ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm; I'm unsure about that just yet. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. This may very well depend on the reliability of the source; if they don't withstand scrutiny and aren't sourced properly – and to me (during that period) that can only be true of information from Elections Canada – I think that should determine our actions. If the results are copied over from some blog elsewhere, they cannot be reasonably verified and might not belong. If they are from a media source (i.e., a Canadian one, like Canadian Press), they likely already conform to the media blackout, but this is uncertain. Would you include results about an imminent Canadian election from, say, CNN? In any event, all such information on the results page should be accompanied by source information or (as per Wp guidelines) it should be "edited mercilessly." Remember: anyone can post links to any website down below, regardless of their authority, and still maintain the integrity of the article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the polls are in doubt, perhaps showing the NDP sweeping Newfoundland, then perhaps deletion is appropriate. But in the polls area, we have normally left a poll in place for 24 hours or so, before the linking reference is available. I think we have to assume that the results are legit ... now it might be worth looking at who added them, and how long they have been around; and perhaps discussing it with then off-line. But I'm not comfortable with removing the results willy-nilly. Nfitz 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you and understand. Remember: this is supposed to be a reputable article about quantifiable election results, not a blog or news report/service for everything including the kitchen sink. In opposition to polls (which we take time to scrutinise, edit, or nix), electoral results will likely be presented in an extremely short timeframe at first, raising issues about verifiability and legitimacy that may remain unaddressed; if so, IMO the results don't belong. What's more: we will have hours, if not days or even weeks, to solidify the article after the results are legitimately released and certified. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it and review as needed. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'd advise you to restore the template and not remove it as you just did. If anything, it should be placed the moment polls open in Atlantic Canada ... and they have, right? There's nothing in it that prevents usual editing by Wikipedians (as we have been), but it serves as a reminder to those who may flout our discussions and who think otherwise. Moreover, a consensus seems to support its inclusion and it is admittedly ad hoc already. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree, but it does not do any harm by including it now on – this – election day. It also serves to inform visitors that any unofficial information, in this article until 03:00 (and perhaps despite our efforts to the contrary), will change and may be circumspect. Perhaps this was Pc62's judgement call to merely get this perfunctory act out of the way? I reflected that in editing the poll article with said template (and still support its inclusion), but am exceedingly reluctant to restore it until later given your revert. We should also not set a precdent of endlessly reverting the template, as this would not bode well for the information contained therein ... particularly given the consensus so far at its TfD to keep it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; yes: additional discussion should've occurred and such acts aren't ideal, but no harm has been done ... (yet?). Come the closing of polls in Atlantic Canada or thereabouts, though, the template should be placed indisputably.

And how do you think the template can be worded better? Remember: we've had days to address this and little time now, and it has been through the ringer already. If you have a suggestion about the wording, let me know on my talk page and I'll consider editing it. I'm reluctant to edit it more since a consensus currently supports its retention, and largely as is. It should not be edited once placed later and until after 03:00, and then it can be appropriately edited to reflect what you suggest regarding timing.

Also note that the "future election" template is now something of a misnomer – it's already underway! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I'd actually push for doing so around 6 p.m. EST (a preliminary warning) ... and it's a nice round figure! But I defer. And despite your edit, I still feel that the "future template" is out of sync with the text below ... hence the propriety of the current template for this current election. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great ... after 6, then. Enjoy your dinner! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have a centring personality or effect? (ha!) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to add the template to the election article ... when I saw that you did! Thanks. I will also add it to the polling and results articles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! By the way, I inaugurated the results article by adding the template to it; otherwise, it's naked! Perhaps someone can add an introductory paragraph, or even include information about release/poll times? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Can you review this, and edit if necessary? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EKOS polling

I get it now, one of the polls was the one they intended and the other one was their daily data. I didn't notice that the same had been done for other dates, the last doubley one was spread out. I don't know why we would want to include both really but ok, sorry about the confusion. Also, there must be a better way to divide up tables than an empty row. I didn't even realize that it was supposed to represent something, assuming that it was. It just looked wrong. Fratley 12:53 AM, 22 January 2006 (EST)

Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006

I've withdrawn the AFD nomination on the grounds that such articles have been created, apparently without incident, for previous years. When it was created, it appeared to be a POV fork to get around WP:NLT, but apparently putting the results on a different page is accepted editorial practice and I won't dispute that. I still maintain that including any legal threats on the page is improper. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PM designate

This is to try to head off all of those eager beavers who are trying to declare S. Harper PM before the GG gets the chance to. Martin is speaking now, and its pretty clear that he's conceding. So I'm jumping the gun by a few minutes. Better that than a few weeks. Ground Zero | t

So called "nonsense"

Not sure how the protection tag is "nonsense"; makes perfect sense to me. 69.109.117.211 07:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wimpy warnings?

I added Template:Test before your Template:Test2 largely because it's a gentler introduction to Wikipedia. That IP started editing Wikipedia today. Their editing may be misguided, but there is no reason to WP:BITE if they're just messing around on a couple of pages where they will be quickly reverted. Incidentally, please remember to use subst: when adding the test tags; it is easier on the server not to have to load the template with each page view. Thanks for asking. Jkelly 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is a judgement call. I just gave HerrPatrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a Template:Bv tag for replacing an image of the Moon with that of a swastika. Everyone has their own standard for when to stop WP:AGF and protect the project or when to suggest the sandbox as a place to experiment. Jkelly 19:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying Organisms Speedy

Howdy, I wanted to drop you a line about the Classifying Organisms speedy. I was concerned that the article was only nonsensical given the title, not generally patent nonsense. Thus had the author indended to write about "Taxonomic Preferences of Lewis and Clark" but chose a poor title, I would not want immediately to delete it. I don't know what the author intends (hence the note about it to their talk page). It was also recently pointed out to me that ordinary nonsense is not speediable, only patent nonsense, so this would probably have to go through an AfD if it is to be deleted. That at least is my understanding. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page or reply below this message. --Hansnesse 02:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you note, yes, there is something strange going on. The author has a history of copyvios, so your point is certainly a good one. It does sound like a high school level textbook. Thanks for the note. --Hansnesse 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CARTOONS OF MOHAMMED

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack?

Thank you for placing the template on my user talk page. I have no idea what my personal attack was though. Perhaps you could tell me? Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 16:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. Telling someone to "get real" may be harsh, but it is neither an insult nor a personal attack. I must therefore inform you that I will consider your message not sent. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone to get real is nowhere near an insult. If I had insulted you, I would have used terms like moron, idiot, loser, asshole, buttwipe etc. But I have not used those terms, I do not intend to use them, and I don't even see a reason to use them, because you are none of them. With "I will consider your message not sent", I meant the following: I have read your messages, I have thought about them, but I see nothing that comes even close to a personal attack, so I will ignore what you have said and I will not change my behaviour. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it doesn't elevate the level of the discussion, but sometimes it's necessary. Like in this case. And if you can't take it, then I suggest you grow some skin (or is that a personal attack as well?). Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 16:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Aecis does have a very low standard of discussion... Just read below: Rajab 18:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created tempalte Template:Muhammad cartoons and placed it in two article already. Remove the "see also" or "main article" and replace it with this template.

that's amazing - we have a huge discussion on how to avoid insulting readers by showing the cartoons (e.g. putting a warning before showing them etc.) & now you come up with a way to show them on each & every article Rajab 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC). And you don't even sign your name....[reply]

We were not having a discussion on that, you (plural) were talking to us about that. That does not constitute a dialogue towards avoiding offense. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's interesting - you don't consider Muslims as equal on wikipedia? Of course *we* (wikipedians) had a discussion about that. Just have a look at the 9 archives Rajab 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expos

Your throughts on a requested move (Talk:Montréal Expos -- Montréal Expos → Montreal Expos) would be much appreciated. Skeezix1000 15:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Expos

Because "Montréal" is the correct way to put it. WikiFanatic 22:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about their logo? (I'm fine with reverting it; I'm not trying to encroach on your territory) WikiFanatic 23:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Álex Rodríguez? That uses accents and it should be Alex Rodriguez since that's what we call him, no? WikiFanatic 23:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Wiki

I noticed you were active on many sports pages. My friends and are I starting a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles. The site is com ArmchairGM. We're not "officially" launching until March 6th, but you can feel free to poke around and add content. Let me know if you have any questions.--Awrigh01 15:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montréal-Ouest

I have the tentation to put the train station Montréal-Ouest in the city of Montreal. Because, if i look on the web site of the AMT, we can find that the adress of the station is on the avenue Harley and this avenue is in Montreal because in Montreal-Ouest, this street is name Broughton. Thank you.

Montreal East

Sorry for the delay. I think the best guide to which name is more common is the local media, who use "Montreal East" exclusively as far as I can tell. Google probably isn't a good reference, because it will be skewed by addresses that use the Canada Post default (French in Quebec, English in the rest of the country). Farquard 19:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the common name that are in use by the english population of Montréal-Est is in french.

Sports wiki link

I removed the link to the sports wiki from your talk page because the editor(s) who placed the notice had placed similar notices on at least three hundred other talk pages; they were engaged in an inappropriate advertising campaign. If you found the notice useful, you're welcome to retain it on your talk page.

Please try not to jump to accusing other editors of vandalism without discussing the matter first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I really don't think the matter is worth arguing over, you did accuse me of vandalism in your edit summary: Revert vandalism by TenOfAllTrades. Just try to keep in mind that other people can and do read the edit summaries that you leave behind. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it's really not worth arguing over. There was a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard about the editors' behaviour; several admins concurred that the postings were inappropriate. In general, such bulk postings are removed as a matter of course. Where an editor had replied on his own talk page to the messages, I did make an effort to preserve a link to the information for that editor.

While we generally are concerned more about the spirit of our rules than their letter, the part of Wikipedia:Vandalism you'll want to refer to is Spam, listed second on the list of types of vandalism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* The thing is, the removal of spam is mandated by the vandalism policy—see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Dealing with vandalism, which instructs "If you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it."

The addition of the linkspam to hundreds of pages was the act of vandalism that I was undoing. Even though it appeared on user talk pages, it doesn't get a free pass. You can see why it would be a Bad Thing to permit editors to spam talk pages with impunity. If you were following the discussion on WP:AN/I, then you were also aware that there was general agreement that the spamming was inappropriate, and there was no objection to reverting it as vandalism.

With respect to the blocks I placed, you'll note that they were indefinite, which is not the same as infinite. It was reasonable to have the blocks last until the website in question went on the spam blacklist, and the editors in question understood what was inappropriate about their behaviour. The accounts had been used solely for spamming; there wasn't a plausible argument to be made that valuable edits were being lost. Since I didn't know how long it would take until those conditions would be fulfilled, I placed an indefinite block and monitored the situation.

I released the blocks that I placed as soon as the two conditions I listed above were met. You'll note that I indicated I would do this in my postings to WP:AN/I on the subject. I've even provided Awrigh01 and Roblesko with instructions on how they might promote their site without running into further trouble here.

I'm trying to keep linkspam out of the encyclopedia, I'm trying to keep things running smoothly here, I've bent over backward to give these guys a chance to try to contribute without doing harm, and all of my actions have been in line with both the letter (important to wikilawyers) and the spirit (actually important) of policy. And yer still bustin' my chops. Whaddya want from me? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. There are two substantive differences between delivering admail to your doorstep and spamming on Wikipedia. For one, the resources being used to deliver the spam on Wikipedia are those of the Wikimedia Foundation. It's as if the guy delivering admail made you pay for the paper, ink, printing, and delivery. (While we often let our contributing editors plug their own personal projects in moderation and in their own user space, there's at least a sort of quid pro quo—a modest amount of promotion is permitted in exchange for their valuable contributions to the project.) These guys were promoting their website using Wikipedia's servers and bandwidth, and (apparently) giving nothing back to the community.

The second difference is that the guy delivering admail to your door doesn't affect search engines. By creating many links to an external site from the high-traffic, high-impact Wikipedia, a website owner can inflate his ranking on the major search engines and drive extra traffic to his site. This is the reason why the links were removed from (most of) the user pages where they appeared; hundreds of links from Wikipedia could serve to manipulate search engine results.

While I suspect that the editors in question here meant no harm and simply failed to think through all the possible consequences of their actions, it is the usual practice to remove the links to discourage other, less ethical individuals from trying to take advantage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CITY-TV and Template:Superstations

if you wish to delete, you can.... User:Raccoon Fox Talk 22:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Hey Nfitz,

Image:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg is about to be deleted, can you please add where you got the photo from? Thanks -- Jeff3000 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the PD tag is almost enough; I think all they now need is where it originally came from; did you get it from a particular website? did you scan it from a book? Just write that information over the current nosource tag, and I think it should be enough. Thanks, -- Jeff3000 14:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John A. MacDonald image

It appears that your bot, is prepaing to delete Image:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg because there is no source information? I would appreciate it, if you would follow normal practice, and have left me a message at that time, rather than simply tagging the image, where few would notice it.

I must confess I'm not clear, nor have I found information, on how one is supposed to source an image. Given that that the photograph is clearly well over 100 years old, and obviously outside of copyright, I marked it as such originally, and thought that would suffice. Can you point me towards information on how source data should be presented, and I will gladly do so? Nfitz 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image was tagged as unsourced by Jkelly. If OrphanBot had done the tagging, you would have been notified as soon as it tagged the image. As is, the bot saw Jeff3000's comment, and figured that you had already been notified.

Generally, an image needs information on who created it, when it was created, when it was published, and who holds the copyright. Images older than 100 years are not "clearly out of copyright": for older works, the term of copyright starts when the image is published, rather than when it was created. http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm is a good overview of when images pass into the public domain in the United States. --Carnildo 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the most recent uploader here. I note that the image remains improperly sourced; there is nothing at the URL given about this image. Jkelly 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are under the misapprehension that images over 120 years old are automatically out of copyright, and complained about the sourcing requirements for such images, without anybody actually telling you why images over 120 years old often are still in copyright. I have found plenty of images that old which I wanted to upload to Wikipedia that turned out to be copyright when I investigated further. So age alone is not the determining factor. By including information like who the photographer was and where the photograph was taken, you make it clear which copyright jurisdiction applies. That is helpful for one thing. Sometimes, depending upon the jurisdiction, you may need to find a source for the actual publication of the image. This is the critical complicating factor - depending on jurisdiction, in many places the countdown starts at publication, not creation. For example, if you are claiming that an image is PD in the United States by virtue of being pre-1923, you actually require first publication to be in the United States before 1923. Now, older photographs weren't usually published. The technology generally wasn't there - newspapers couldn't include early photographs, and the photographic postcard didn't really emerge until later. There were some limited instances of publications from catalogues but as a rule, old photographs weren't usually published until much later than their creation date. Most just stayed in private hands, unpublished. Plenty remain unpublished; others have found their way onto the internet or into books of "Old Placeville in Photographs" which include many first publications of very old photographs, as late as the 1990s or 2000s. Even the "70 years after creator's death" rule often doesn't apply - in the 19th century, many photographs were taken by very young professional photographers, sometimes in their teens, who died much later. I am aware of several 1890 photographs, for instance, that will not come out of copyright for another 15 years. However, if the photographer can be confirmed and it turns out they died long enough ago, then that's great! So, all the additional information about where and when a picture was taken and published are highly relevant to copyright status - very many photographs from 120+ years ago will not be public domain. I hope you find this helpful - not trying to lecture you, but I think you deserve an answer and it doesn't look like you were going to get one :-) TheGrappler 20:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAM

Please reconsider your opinion at the proposal to delete this redirect. I am the essay's creator and principal contributor. Its editors all agree that WP:MASTODONS is a better shortcut. This deletion request is not part of any broader effort to delete acronym shortcuts from essays in general: it is a specific request pertaining to one essay only and has full support from the people who are active at the page. Durova 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vrba edits

Thanks for your note. I checked when I saw you'd cleaned out some vandalism, but somehow both of our edits stuck. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial advice

Consider this stuff, some of which I learned the hard way - some of us (half the people in lot of RFDs there) have worked a long time on Microsoft and related articles. I was the one who personally got it up to featured status, which took many, many weeks; nearly a whole year. Meanwhile you are coming in, persistantly claiming you know what it is best for them. It is fine to make suggestions, but wikilawyering around and claiming each of us has some sort of axe or POV to grind, especially which clear evidence of knowing NOTHING of the history of the pages, is not cool. In the future, please ask questions, read the history of the pages and talkpages/afds, and try to work towards a COMPROMISE with other editors; otherwise you'll just drive them away, and then you'll have no one left to help you out... RN 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"And I'm not the one who started the wikilawyering " - well, that is too bad that you have chosen that path... RN 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not the only person using this pc... I didn't vandalize Mariah Carey article. Sorry.201.43.19.123 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. 2795, the Patent Reform Act of 2005 → Patent Reform Act of 2005

Thanks a lot for your note on my talk page! --Edcolins 09:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: changes to Eris and Dysnomia

Some of your changes had to be reverted since they were contrary to the WP:MOS for disambiguation pages. I've left a full explanation at Talk:Eris. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter tyre

Sorry I did not reply to your comment, It appeared that you had corrected my mistake (of which I fully acknowledge as my error) and there seemed little point in replying as the issue had been resolved. Sorry I added the db-context - it was premature. Senordingdong 19:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: your comment

I'll look into this later when I have more time. One question, there seem to be quite a lot of opposes on the talk page. Doesn't look much like consensus. -- Steel 21:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming
Here we go. Ongoing discussion, no clear consensus yet. -- Steel 22:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP

If your tirade of nonsense continues an administrator may block you. HP 50g 22:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ignore that. It seems as if the guy that posted on Admin Board, is the real problem. I jumped to conclusions. HP 50g 22:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tildes

Thanks! just tell me about the tildes.. dont get it =/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Netomx (talk • contribs) .

In reply to your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help requested

I was going to reply to your comment at WP:AN/I, but it's not really necessary to put it there.

All I can say is please take a short break to clear your head and then rethink the matter. I understand where you're coming from, it's not that I agree or disagree with you. You're deeply involved in a disagreement with this editor, and I think you're seeing this in a different light than those of us who aren't involved with the AfD/RfD/whatever disagreements. I'm no admin, and not that great an editor either, I'm just trying to put it in perspective. If you still feel strongly about it tomorrow, pursue it, however consider that letting it drop may be the best course of action for all involved (read: the best for you and RN). It's just advice, take it with a grain of salt, my only agenda here is to see you both back to constructive tasks in the near future. BigNate37_(T) 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RN/ANI reply

Hi,

As it happens, I have been around long enough to remember vaguely the circumstances involving the first two of those three blocks, and they were controversial and disputed -- process vs. WP:IAR question there, very old, very tricky. In any case, that was ages ago. My objection is not meant to impugn you, only to insist that RN is generally trusted, and that warning him would rightly require exceptional circumstances. Even in disagreements, we don't warn respected editors unless their behavior is egregious. This may be a "double standard," but it's a fair double standard, common in everyday life: experienced and respected folks are treated differently than newbies because they've earned respect. (By the same token, newbies are treated with more patience, because we expect they'll make mistakes.) Best wishes, Xoloz 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pewlosels

Thanks you for your comment. Because the user in question was unblocked a couple of days ago, I consider the matter closed & have no further interest in discussing it at this time. -- llywrch 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stern removed for his remarks

About Stern being removed for his remarks: of course, this seems obvious, but we should be wary of the obvious. I have read that he was removed with stations denying it had anything to do with the remarks. It may sound fishy, but if it's what's officially said, it can't be bypassed (it can be noted that it was doubted). I would like your sources for saying it was overtly the reason, which is that the section implies now. Also, I respect your attemps to do what in your own opinion is correct and I thank you for it. I hope we find some common ground. --Liberlogos 23:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would you please point out any problem you find with the Ray Conlogue quote translation at Quebec bashing#Quotes? I will underline that the quote comes from an interview from La Presse published in French, so this is not a "double" translation (English to French to English). I wish to listen. --Liberlogos 00:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any firm references for Stern; just my own recollections; should likely be rephrased ... though I still don't see the need for Stern; he's completely oblivious to Canadian politics, and he'll shoot off his mouth on any subject - that's what a shock jock does. His words aren't proof of anything, except that he's a shock jock.

As for Conologue, as in English journalist, I assume that his quote was in English. If not, then fine ... though I've never heard of the guy, and I don't see why his comments would have any relevence to a discussion.

You've returned the phrase I removed "Quebec is a North American society ..."; the words you use are fine in themselves; but no one would use that structure ... it just doesn't parse. It needs to be written in standard English. There are many, many, examples of this; virtually every sentance is riddled with odd constructs that bend the meaning ... such as "Past radio personality ..." What does that mean? Former radio personality maybe? Nfitz 02:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stern: I see the point that the presence is the... less non-debatable of the present examples, but the thing still happened and was deemed anti-Quebec by a substantial number of people. The article stresses heavily ("allegedly" is used each time the expression "Quebec bashing" is mentioned, quotation marks are used, etc.); in other words, it's about things (in the media) that happened and were deemed anti-Quebec by a substantial number of people. How is Stern's thing opposite to the nature of the article then?
Ray Conlogue: The article was in French, so I am speaking of the original language of publication, and he speaks French, and drawing from his own words, I believe it would be his type to speak the local majority language in the given land or the language of the journalist that welcomes his opinion, by respect. Conlogue was referenced twice on the deletion debate and I have referenced him on the article and he's cited in The Black Book of English Canada (Conlogue did the English translation). He is a former Quebec correspondent and former cultural correspondent for The Globe and Mail.
"Quebec is a North American society ...": Let's change the words for a moment for "Virginia is an American society". Correct. Then what makes it wrong in your example? "North American" being two words? The similar construction "South American country" get word for word, as an expression, dictionary entries here, here, here and here.
I changed "past" to "former" to be sure. But golly, I heard that numerous times, and Google searches for such things as "Past President" appear to confirm this (9,990,000 hits, and they're not all "in the 'past, President' John Smith..."). If you have other examples, bring them up. --Liberlogos 04:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:André Pratte

"For a clear-eyed vision of Quebec" is the official name for "Pour un Québec lucide" (see here on the official website) and on Wikipedia, we use official English names when available. But *why* wouldn't "separatists" sign a document titled in English?? And must I remind people that not only so-called "separatists" signed the manifesto, and that it went against the left-wing opinions of the majority of "separatists"? And why do you use that biased term "separatists"? --Liberlogos 10:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. There's no reason why "separatists" would not sign a document with an English title also. Also, notorious anti-"separatist" federalists signed the manifesto; yes, they were "exactly" federalists. This is the first time I've seen Pour un Québec lucide specifically associated to "separatists". Please do not use the "separatist" word. "Separatist, word of rupture used in English, only while grinding one's teeth and to put an end to any discussion." - René Lévesque, 1968 (René Lévesque: Mot à mot, Éditions Stantké, p.314) --Liberlogos 13:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres

The passed motion to move dwarf planets to Name (dwarf planet) is currently being finalised at the Talk: 1 Ceres page. As you participated in the original debate, it would help if you could now add your vote there. The Enlightened 19:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres

I don't disagree that there wasn't consensus to move. But there was also consensus in the discussion to keep the vote open to Monday October 16th! Nfitz 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that, but in general if it seems that a consensus is reached after 5 days then the debate is closed unless it is very close. In this case, discussion was really slowing down, and it didn't seem like the majority vote was going to be altered in any way with any new votes, nor was anyone going to change their vote, so closing the discussion was also functioning to save the time of the editors arguing. —Mets501 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vigile.net

I asked the initiator to sum up what's going on. She informed me that there were links to vigile that don't show permission was given. Someone brought up Canadian law. The papers are American, under the International Copyright Convention, that does not matter. I informed her of this and closed the case. If you can prove that permission has been shown, let me know and I will re-open the case. Geo. 01:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain better, the case was still in the initial stages. If there had been something to mediate, I would be contacting everyone listed as a party. My decision was more of a rejection, so why bother people. Apologies if I did not explain well enough. Geo. 06:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ontario nom

I misread something, and have now changed my vote. Thanks for letting me know. Xiner (talk, email) 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walther P22 and Glock 19

Nfitz, thanks for your work on the Walther P22 and Glock 19 articles, making sure that the Virginia Tech massacre gets mentioned there. Mention of VT definitely belongs in those articles. Astruc 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walther P22 dispute

An article which you have edited, Talk:Walther P22#Request for Comment: Walther P22 – is involved in a dispute requiring inputs from editors to develop a consensus for editors to follow on whether or not mention of the Virginia Tech Massacre should be mentioned in the firearm article, or if mention in the VT Massacre article of the firearms used, with a link back to the Walther P22 article, is adequate. Thank you. Yaf 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walther P22 disputes continues

Hello. The discussion of whether to include a mention of the Virginia Tech massacre at the Walther P22 article continues. Earlier, a compromise was reached to include a mention of the Viriginia Tech massacre in a "See Also" section of this article, but now that idea is being debated. Care to weigh in? The Walther P22 is being discussed here. Griot 16:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ca-on-wd.gif

Hello, Nfitz. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Ca-on-wd.gif) was found at the following location: User talk:Nfitz. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Abuse

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 70.51.138.88 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - who is dealing with this? You can't block an entire institution simply because a 10-year old wrote over 2 pages ... Nfitz (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, this was an autoblock because you are using the same ip. Its not something any admin has any control over and since we don't have access to users' ips we can't predict who an autoblock might affect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beach School

May I assume that Victor64 (talk · contribs) is known to you, since you appear to share a common interest in The Beach School? While he was blocked with more dispatch than usual, the action was within normal practice and the administrator's discretion. The user was even welcomed and provided to blank the linked WP:Five pillars with this edit [1]. Nobody is entitled to a particular number of strikes before blocking, and "This is retarded" is not an experiment. No apologies are due to Victor64, but we regret that the school's IP was autoblocked due to his abuse of editing privileges. Acroterion _(talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~ Yes, the user is known to me. I was sitting on an adjacent computer, and observing, and counselling him. He is 12-year old boy, has never seen Wikipedia before, made 2 edits to an article to fix earlier damage. And then decided to test what he was being told, that if he wrote something that wasn't true - it wouldn't stay there long - by editing a couple of articles. After he received a warning, he then proceeded to make further fixes made from the IP without being logged in (he had inadvertently logged out. He was working on a further fix and discovered he had been blocked - so I tried to make the fix for him, and discovered that the entire school had been locked out. His edits do not fit the Wikipedia definition of vandalism; it fits under the description of What vandalism is not - tests by experimenting users. The guidelines note that "Rather than be warned for vandalism, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the sandbox (e.g., using the test template message) where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive."

Also the user, despite having half of his edits as constructive, was blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, when this was clearly not the case.

I really have avoid the politics of Wikipedia for awhile, but it appears to me that some administrators are not following the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers guideline. Nfitz (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest he use the unblock template to request an unblock. We get astounding amounts of long-term vandalism from school IP's. A sincere request is likely to be granted. Philippe is a respected administrator who hardly fits the description of "rogue admin", and is entirely reasonable when approached politely. Acroterion _(talk) 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll suggest that to him - not being the blocked party, I haven't seen that template. (the user in question was last seen running across the school shouting "I got the entire school blocked from Wikipedia :)",. Seems that when you tell a 12-year old, if they delete an article, someone will restore it within a couple of minutes only leads to them trying to test that ... oh, I wasn't thinking of Philippe, who just fufilled the request, (though perhaps should have reviewed the details), I was thinking of Equazcion, who issued an inappropriate final warning, and then trumped up the block request. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You better have a read at WP:BEANS before you have a pandemic on your hands..:) Igor Berger (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He'll need to add the {{unblock|your reason here}} at the bottom of the page, with a short, sincere explanation in the "your reason here" part. Equazcion really wasn't out of line: blanking and inserting "This is retarded" on a major policy page seen by many new users and linked to the welcome he just received is a significantly bad thing and calls for a strong warning: it may have been a bit harsh, but ignoring an obvious warning and repeating the edit was the real issue. I appreciate your faith in our error-correction, but I would suggest that all editing, experimental or not, should be constructive, and I would never suggest the insertion of obvious nonsense in any case, monitored or not, certainly not as a teaching tool (as Igor observes, don't tell a kid to put beans up his nose!). As you can see by this example, it's too easy to misunderstand. That's why we have a sandbox, and you can always use the "Show preview" button to see how an edit looks on a page without saving it. Acroterion _(talk) 01:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a teacher is not an easy task for you and for us as well. How do you teach constructively. How do you take emotions and feeling into consideration. How do you teach kids about the adult world. Many chalenges for all of us. We also do not know who is behind the magic screen editing the pages. We at times can jump to conclusions, without malintent. I think Wikipedia imitates the real world community, but much faster and more intence. Try your best at you endaviour. Igor Berger (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, thank you for coming to me on my talk page with this question. I'm sorry to say that I disagree with you. On initial inspection, that particular user showed no signs of wanting to become a productive member of the community - only of disruption. While I am a solid proponent of hospitality towards newbies, WP:BITE implies something in return: it implies that the newcomer also demonstrate some intention of taking the mission of the encyclopedia seriously. This user did not demonstrate that. Users caught in an autoblock can petition to have the autoblock lifted and I will look positively upon such a petition. In fact, (and I'll leave a message to this effect on Victor64's user talk) page: if Victor should apologize for his actions and assure me that he will not engage again in similar actions, I'll personally unblock him. - Philippe | Talk 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re my message on User:Tadan5's talk page

Sorry about that, I must have got distracted after I posted the message on Tadan5's talk page. I'll be more careful in future. --Joe^Talk_Work 09:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Philippe block of User:Victor64 and subsequent discussions

I noted a discussion relating to the above at ANI here. After a review I found the block sound, and the language in the summary appropriate. My full reasoning is at the above link. I fail to understand your rationale for contesting either, nor arguing the requirement of an undertaking to cease disruption as a pre-requisite for unblocking - especially since the blockee has made no visible attempt to engage in discussion. Also, I would comment that I find the text of this unacceptable, and I am concerned that a long standing editor would accuse another of lies. I consider this a personal attack and am giving you an official first warning for violation of the policy. Please moderate your terminology in future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read the comments in the section a couple of places above. Notwithstanding, I still find your actions inappropriate. Replacing swathes of content with "This is retarded" is beyond a test, and was properly treated as such. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack? What on earth are you talking about? User:Philippe noted that the Victor64 account is a vandalism-only account. As less than half of the edits made by this user were vandalism, then by definition this wasn't a vandalism-only account. User:Philippe was made aware of this, but didn't retract what he said. He is lying, and knowingly. How is me simply observing the reality of the situation a personal attack? Surely if anyone is making a personal attack, it is User:Philippe Nfitz (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz you clearly know Victor64 in real life and your loyalty to a friend is commendable but please forgive me for being blunt. Blocking Victor64 was towards the harsh end of spectrum but will within accepted norms for handling vandalism. The amount of heat your campaign is generating is not justified and your actions are now dangerously bordering on harrassing Phillippe. You don't like the decision. We know but now you need to move on. If Victor64 wants to seek an unblock and agree to behave I'm sure they will be unblocked but until that happens this subject should be dropped. I'm sorry but you can't carry on with this. Please stop now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism, but this doesn't give User:Philippe the right to lie. There were appropriate actions he could have taken, and inappropriate actions. He made the choice of taking inappropriate actions, and when his actions were pointed out to be inappropriate, rather than moderate what he had done, he chose to stand by it. His actions were out of line, and all I am doing is pointing this out. That isn't harrassment. Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You were specifically warned not to accuse another editor of "lying", but you have continued to do so. You seem unconcerned that you violate Wikipedia's codes of No Personal Attacks and Civility. You have therefore been blocked for 24 hours - please note that the ip autoblock has been disabled in this instance - for disrupting the encyclopedia. You have been advised that both the actions of your student and your own comments are inappropriate; and although you may disagree - and are entitled to record your views in polite terms - this is the consideration of some administrators here. We do not tell you how to educate your charges, and we must insist that we be allowed to police our rules to our own standards.

I would further comment that two instances of reverting minor vandalism does not equal out two instances of replacing large quantities of text on hight traffic pages with "This is retarded". It was not proportional, and the overall effect to the community was one of Vandalism Only. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

This block doesn't seem to make sense. I haven't made personal attacks or been uncivil with User:Phillipe. I believe he has lied, and I have documented his lie. Documenting the lie on WP:ANI doesn't constitute a personal attack! What a process - shoot the witness! Can someone please lift this block.

Decline reason:

After reviewing the relevant discussions, the problem appears to have been already solved well before you were blocked. Philippe agreed to unblock Victor, conditional upon his apologizing and agreeing to do no further vandalism. Victor learned a valuable lesson, that vandalism on Wikipedia results in blocking. The whole situation is resolved, and it's up to Victor whether he wants to accept the offered unblock or not; I don't see what you hope to achieve by continuing to attack Philippe. In any case, it's only a 24-hour cooling-off block, not an indef, and a reasonable block considering your inexplicable pursuit of a satisfactorily resolved situation and attacks on an admin making an appropriate block. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

I don't see how I can not be involved. I observed Victor's actions, and I saw him receive a permanent block from Wikipedia after only a few minutes without without any warnings. This was a newcomer who had never seen Wikipedia in his life. Furthermore, Phillipe documented that this user was only doing vandalism, which was clearly not true. How can I not be involved? Surely it is the responsibility of any member of the community to report such injustice. However that is not relevent to my own blocking today. My own block today is apparently because I noted that Phillipe lied While I disagree that that this is a personal attack (I merely believe that this was me documenting what had happened). My block appears to be because I continued to do so? Hang on, my only communication with Phillipe since the WIP:ANI process started, was a perfectly civil comment on his page, that made no reference to his, or anyone else's actions. My only reference to the incident itself, was on the WIP:ANI discussion (and of course, in this very note on my talk page, questioning the warning for a personal attack). I can't be blocked from Wikipedia for simply taking part in a discussion on WIP:ANI that Phillipe himself started. I've documented the evidence quite clearly. Phillipe clearly said the Victor account was being only used for vandalism - this is 100% not true. Please lift my block - I have no intention of having any further debate on this on Phillipe's talk page. Nfitz (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

accusing an adminsitrator, who is a trusted editor in good standing, of "lying" is a personal attack and shall not be tolerated. Please wait out this block, and when it expires, I highly suggest you make no attempt to have further contact with this administrator. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

I haven't made any further attempts to contact that administrator. That is not what this is about. I didn't accuse the administrator of lying. I documented the lie. The administrator did lie - therefore documenting the lie is not a personal attack. This is clearly beyond WP:ANI and needs to go to mediation and/or arbirtration. As I am currently mostly out-of-town and won't have much access until at least March 25th, I will file a request for mediation at that time. In the meantime, I have been blocked merely for noting on WP:ANI that Philippe is not telling the truth. Surely WP:ANI is the place to discuss this. And I note that User:Philippe noted today that "100% of the recent changes had been vandalism" - however a review of Special:Contributions/Victor64 shows that this is not true. Using what was shown there, only 50% of recent changes were vandalism, and with the information I provided above at User_talk:Nfitz#The_Beach_School only 33% of recent changes were vandalism. Philippe is clearly overstating his case, and that is not right. I am merely pointing this out on the appropriate forum WP:ANI - after having tried to understand his position without avail on his talk page. I am highly concerned that an apparently respected editor would continue to make false statements, and that one is blocked for pointing this out, in the appropriate forum. Nfitz (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is pointless Wikilawyering. Victor made 4 edits, and two of his edits where he said "This is retarded". If Victor wishes to defend himself, he can use the unblock template himself. Based on these edits, any admin would have been justified in blocking Victor. It is not YOUR job to try to make a court case out of Phillpe's block. It was a good block, and Victor does not need you to defend him. Stop wasting our time... — Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

Wherever or not that block was a good block or not is not relevent; that block will be dealt with through dispute resolution, or arbitration. The question here is my block - this was not addressed. I was blocked for documenting Philippe's misleading statements; nothing more, nothing less; that isn't right. Furthermore, it was noted above, that my block is a "only a 24-hour cooling-off block" - however Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks clearly notes that Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation. - how can I be given a "cooling-off block" when such blocks are should not be used?

Decline reason:

See previous admins' reasons. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reviewer was in error, it was not a cooling down block. It was a 24 hour block for violation of WP:NPA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting me; I was indeed wrong to call it a 'cooling off block' rather than a preventative block, which is what it was. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet my talk page got frozen because I asked about the 'cooling off block'. And I'm still clueless how anyone thinks I violated WP:NPA. I simply documented the facts. If someone doesn't tell the truth, how can I NOT point it out? Nfitz (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice: It's over. Let it go. The problem is solved, and there's nothing to gain by pursuing it further. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it over? I have no idea why I was blocked. I need to go through a process to sort that out, as either the party who blocked me will continue to wrong others; or if I was wrong I will continue to do the same thing that caused the block. I'm also concerned how an Admin can go to WP:ANI and write things that are untrue about the incident without any censure. I also note that according to the dispute resolution procedure, that I don't proceed to dispute resolution or arbirtration until after the block is lifted - which is now. Nfitz (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no idea why you were blocked, and yet independant observers confirmed that it was correctly applied with an appropriate tariff then you should perhaps consider that you are in error in your understanding of some basic WP policies. I would draw your attention specifically to Wikipedia:CIVIL#Examples, and to the last two examples in the first section. To term anothers statements as lies and them thus to be liars is a clear breach of that policy. I warned you, again specifically, that the terminology used was inappropriate. I suggested that you were permitted to make your points civilly. However, you chose to argue your understanding of "truth" and the freedom of speech - notwithstanding that this is a private website and that you were being informed of the rules governing conduct here.

When you, in your incorrect understanding of how things are around here, not only repeated the unsavoury language but attempted to justify how you were correct, the community wrong, and that deference should be made to your viewpoint I enacted a 1 day block. The reason was so that the effect of your disruption would be diminished. Instead of reviewing your actions, or apologising in the interests of future understanding, you continued to pursue your campaign of attempting to have the community accommodate your viewpoint - contrary to principles and practice. Thus your unblock requests were denied.

As well as WP:CIVIL, I think you should also study WP:NPA and WP:Etiquette before pursuing any remedies you think you are due. I think you will find that the codes of conduct expected here are higher than found in most of society. It is because WP is such a large community of such disparity that it can be easy to forget that the individual behind a different screen name may not share your views as to what is appropriate, or not. If everyone tries to be civil then the chance of offending someone is lessened. Obviously, sometimes incivility happens and admins - experienced editors who are familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and who are tasked in allowing the community to function in builing the encyclopedia - will take action. Under the circumstances I was that admin. I gave you the warning, specified the problem, commented how you might redirect your assertions, and when you failed to heed the advice enacted a short block to stop the continuing policy violations.

I really hope that you take the time to read the linked policies, consider my comments, and see how your insistence in behaving in a manner inconsistent with the ethos of Wikipedia lead to the actions taken. I am surprised that someone who has edited for as long as you are not more familiar with how things are, but I am willing to answer any questions you may have regarding the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read these policies. And as far as I can tell, I have followed them. All my communication was perfectly civil. You say that the policy says I can't point out when people tell lies. But I don't see that in the policy. The only thing the policy says is that one must not tell lies. This is pretty black and white. Phillipe clearly, knowingly and with repitition, made a statement of fact that was not true. The English-language word for such a thing is a lie. Comment that someone is lying is no more being uncivil, than noting that a bus is late. It is merely a statement of fact. Saying someone is a dirty liar, a cheating liar, etc., in uncivil. There is nothing in anything I wrote that is not civil, and didn't meet. The policy says nothing about identifying lies. And I never called anyone a liar - I said they were lying - that is two completely different things.

The root problem here, is that we have an Admin who did a lie. By your read of the documents, I'm just not allowed to point this out. That makes no sense at all, and therefore can not be the correct interpretation. It's not like I was running around Wikipedia trashing him, left, right and centre. I followed the dispute procedures, slowly and civily. First I discussed it politely with him on his talk page, to try and resolve. Then, I was preparing to go to WP:ANI. For some reason he went there first, so I followed, and simply made my case. However as the whole root of the case, was a lie he made, I had to point it out. What else is one to do? Nfitz (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you were absent between 12 - 19 March, while I was on wikibreak over the Easter holidays. Even if I were inclined (see follows) there was little opportunity for communication. That said, I have no interest in further attempting to explain how Wikipedia works; I have told you how you acted inappropriately (and how the original block was appropriate) and you appear determined not to concede that your values or understandings are subrogated on this website to the rules that have been created here. You are unprepared to consider that your misunderstandings of how the rules are applied and explained by individual volunteers do not constitute "lies" and that the very term lie is one that is severely frowned upon within this community. You appear incapable of understanding these simple comments, and continue to use this insulting terminology in further comments. It does you and any point you are attempting to make no favours when you act as if the site hosts and those who try and police have no jurisdiction over your actions.
By all means take this to WP:ANI (the Arbitration Committee tend to require that some form of dispute resolution is attempted before they will consider taking a case) if you wish. I doubt that you will get any better a response than when appealing your block, since you do not seem to want to understand the rules, policies and guidelines that govern this place - and through which all your complaints have been appropriately dealt with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I was blocked, and my talk page was locked, I used the contact e-mail to challenge the block. The response I got from an admin that, was Personally, I don't think the block against you was valid either, and it's rather depressing to see how many admins refused your unblock request. I would have unblocked you early, but I guess it took more than 24 hours to dig deep enough into this to figure out what happened. So as far as I can conclude, I didn't act inappropriately. Also I'm not sure your post above is civil itself. I request you reread it and apply to yourself, the standards you ask others to follow. While I might well take your post today to ANI, for uncivility, I've been lead to believe that the next step in itself in your erroneous block of me is dispute resolution - before leading to arbitration - though I would accept an apology and simply ending this. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU's invalid block of nfitz

I note that you archived the discussion about this with the edit summary "archiving per WP:DENY". Can you explain what that means? I don't see anything about archiving in WP:DENY. And WP:DENY is about vandalism - as no one has ever accused me of vandalism in my 4 years here, then I'm not what you are implying? Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just looking for an explanation of your thoughts here. I'm just not understanding. Obviously I'm not a troll - any suggestion that someone who has been editing here for 4 years is a troll simply because they agree with other Admins, rather than you, would be most uncivil. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have already received my thoughts, per the above. I have no intention of re-iterating them. I shall continue to archive further comments by you to my talkpage, but will in future make no other summary other than that I am archiving. Please use any other venue available to you if you wish to pursue this matter, but I have said all I care to to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay - though I think I'm required to have a dialogue with you before proceeding to other venues. However, the system confuses me. As an Admin, perhaps you can tell me what the process I should follow when an Administrator blocks someone without cause, and then then implies they are a vandal and a troll without any evidence when they try to figure out why they were blocked? Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your protection of my talk page

I believe your protection of my talk page was inappropriate. As it turned out, the one question that I was asking it was noted above, that my block is a "only a 24-hour cooling-off block" - however Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks clearly notes that Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation. - how can I be given a "cooling-off block" when such blocks are should not be used? was correct, and the admin who made that note admitted his error.

I'm not sure why you didn't point out his error, but instead ignored my question, and shut down my ability to communicate. This isn't correct, and I ask that not take part in this type of process, unless you are going to do it properly or seriously. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ignore your question, rather I determined that the three admins who already declined to reverse your block were correct and protected your talk page as warned by the unblock template. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 09:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to as how you determined the block was correct, as at the time you reviewed it, the justification for the block was my block is a "only a 24-hour cooling-off block" - however Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks clearly notes that such blocks should not be used? Nfitz (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heading off Wikidrama

Since I know nobody here, and happened upon this wikidrama at ANI, rather than allow this all to go on, how about some outside comment? First of all, Nfitz from his userpage and history is a long time contributor (Nov. 2005) and not a troll, sock, vandal, or anything else bad. He's the kind of person we want, minus his/her indulgence regarding bratty behavior from his kids at his school (I’m going to use masculine for convenience, since there's a lot of roadrage here). From his comments, he appears to be a teacher at the Canadian School called The Beach School, which appears in the Wiki named. Nfitz has been in trouble for his students' IP edits before. Okay, he should doubly know better than to let it happen. I don't care if they are 10 or 12.

In the latest round, Nfitz did something that really needed a reading of WP:BEANS (as has been commented) and made a suggestion which caused a student to vandalize mainspace pages to see how long the revert would take. However, that student, user:Victor64, started out by actually repairing two previous vandalisms to The Beach School doubtless made by some other experimenting student there (or else himself under a sock name). Had the students kept using this particular article as their own sandbox, probably nobody would have noticed. But then Victor64's next two edits were vandalisms to a policy article and a general article (within a few minutes) and that earned him an indef block (one faster than I usually see for vandals, BTW), by user:Philippe for being a "vandal only" account.

Okay, so Nfitz complains to the blocking admin, user:Philippe, who behaves correctly in agreeing to remove the block if the user will apologize. Well and good. Except I'm not sure he quite knows the user is 12. But Nfitz calls him on the technicality of this being a "vandal only" account. This was technically incorrect, as the history of the account shows [2].

Okay, so now it gets weird and WP:LAME. Possibly the subtext is a teacher protecting a student from BITE abuse, and admins trying to protect the WP from vandalism (although, as I say, I wish they were this quick on the trigger for the average school-vandal). For some odd reason, user:Philippe absolutely will not acknowledge the technical error, as this is clearly a school experimentation account which is both committing and fixing vandalism experimentally, even though, as everyone admits, it makes no difference in the decision (as the user certainly had committed enough vandalism to earn an indef block if not apologizing and mending his ways).

So Philippe pointedly ignores Nfitz's point, which is bound to cause anger, merely commenting that he and Nfitz are not going to see "eye to eye" on what a "vandalism only account" is [3]. And indeed the term "vandalism only" is not defined anywhere on WP, although actually WP:BLOCK policy does support indef blocks on accounts used "primarily" for vandalism. What "primarily" means is not defined. Is it numbers of edits? Do large deletions count more than small fixes? LessHeard does a bit of Wikilawyering here and claims that the "overall effect" of the account was "Vandal Only" even if it wasn't literally that. As though the term still had some residual meaning! Nobody seems to realize that it does not, and isn't even used anymore in policy.

Next, (did I mention WP:LAME?) because Philippe will not acknowledge the literal meaning of "vandal only", even though using the phrase himself, Nfitz says he lies. Then user:LessHeard vanU comes in and helps nothing by blocking Nfitz for 24 hours for "disruption", later changing his reason as violation of WP:NPA for calling an admin a liar. When Nfitz complains about this, 3 other admins refuse to unblock, but none of them has anything very useful to say about the situation and how it's progressing.

At one point, an appropriately-named admin called user:Stifle locks down Nfitz' TALK page, a move which seems about as likely to help as the "cooldown blocks" which are prohibited in BLOCK policy. Despite this, another passing administrator actually thinks this IS a cooldown block, and yet does nothing. The quality of the peer review by admins here, is frankly depressing.

By now, both Philippe and LessHeard have refused to engage in further discussion with Nfitz, which only makes him more angry. LessHeard gives his reason, somewhat weirdly, as WP:DENY, which is an essay about dealing with vandals by not talking to them(!) The problem: Nfitz is a long-contributing editor, and is neither newbie nor troll, and not by any stretch of imagination ever a vandal. None of the opinions in WP:DENY remotely apply to him, and he's senior enough to know it, and to know that the use of it implies that he actually is a vandal. So now he's even more angry. And properly (albeit cleverly) insulted. That's one way to get away with violating CIVIL, I suppose.

So my opinion, for what it's worth: Basically: you all should be red-faced for letting this get this far.

User:Nfitz, you remind me of those mothers in public meetings or films who let their children scream. Or kick adults in public places. If you supervise your charges like this while teaching them to cross streets, I'll bet the dear little boys have plenty of tire-tracks on them. This is really your fault for failing to supervise and I've yet to hear you admit it. All the while wanting other people to admit their petty own mistakes, and assuming they are "liars" when they won't. FYI, there's quite a difference between lying and refusing to acknowledge error. As you should well know from your own behavior!

User:Philippe, FYI, there is no such thing as a Vandal Only account, and you got trapped in having to defend your terminology of something that isn't even a legality here. It would have been to your best interest to read the BLOCK policy again (since you're so hot on the trigger) and spend some time explaining it to Mr. Teacher here. Instead, you just shut down and refused to admit you might need to do some reading. So you kept the war ball rolling, here, when you had a chance to stop it. Your standard of indef-blocking newbie users falls well outside two-sigma limits of past policy here on WP. You intend to be a pioneer in blockology, maybe? And your statement "100% of recent changes have been vandalism"?? That's a classic. You mean 100% of the last TWO edits?? "A truth that's told with bad intent/ Beats all the lies you can invent" (Pope). This is really NOT the way to show the world what it means to be an administrator. You were doing very well, until you flubbed it.

User:LessHeard vanU, you absolutely did NOTHING to help this situation, and only made it worse with a punitive block of an respected long term editor who had a gripe which needed some explaining by somebody who actually knew what they were talking about. And yes, it was punitive. Your use of the language confirms this: "If you have no idea why you were blocked, and yet independant observers confirmed that it was correctly applied with an appropriate tariff then you should perhaps consider that you are in error in your understanding of some basic WP policies." TARIFF is punishment language. You're not an assessor nor tax collector. If you want to place retributive blocks on people, I would suggest you don't discuss your thinking in public. Lastly, your use of and reference to the essay WP:DENY, which is about vandals and no more than somebody's personal opinion, at that, is completely bizarre. What were you thinking?

User:Stifle, you really didn't help anything by closing off discussion and gagging the respected editor. You made things worse. If this is your idea of helpfulness, I personally think you should stifle yourself.

As for the rest of you admins who took a look at this block case and did little to help: you might as well not have bothered. Next time, consider not bothering. A community of people who don't spend the time to become informed shouldn't count as a "community" at all. What good is such a community?

The only administrator who didn't come out of this with egg on his/her face was Igor Berger, who probably posted the most useful and wise comments. A shame he didn't comment more. I don't know him, but he sounds like somebody to know.

I think that all of you (except Igor) should apologize to everybody else for wasting everybody else's time with petty blocks and gags and indulgent coddling of 12 year-olds (who are old enough to know better), and not spending any time on a case of escalating war which didn't really need to build.

And if you are tempted to ask me to buzz off, I'll just do exactly that. Serve you right. In that case, keep right on doing what you were doing. And have a pleasant day. S B H arris 04:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFC

This is a friendly warning: The edit you made is risking reigniting an edit war. Essentially, this is the breakdown of the debate (if you can call it that, more like a screaming match):

1. 75% (several polls have been conducted) do not believe "Redcoats" to be a nickname because it is not used by the majority of fans nor the media. 25% like the nickname.
2. The majority says that the minority is trying to force the nickname on everyone and is selfish for not accepting the majority rule. The minority believe that 25% is still a significant minority.
3. Because of these two viewpoints which were thoroughly discussed/argued/yelled about on the various forums, it sparked an edit war which had to be stopped by a page protection. We've come to a compromise that "Redcoats" should be left out of the title box (because it is not used as extensively as "Reds" or "TFC") but that it should mentioned that "Redcoats" has been accepted by some in the body of the article.
4. Although I disagree with using "Redcoats" as you do (and I do think it is an arrogant minority trying to force this artifical sounding name on everyone), Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic in that it should reflect the subject as much as possible. To avoid sparking another edit war, I'd like to ask you a favour: can you yourself revert the edit you made? This is not meant to be bossy or insulting, it's just that if you do it (as opposed to someone else), it avoids the appearance that each side is arrogantly trying to impose its opinion by overwriting the previous edit. We've reached a consensus, but only after ugly debates and we're hoping to avoid a repeat. I hope you understand what I'm getting at, and I know this was a good faith edit. Lucky Strike (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke[reply]

---

Yes, I was the one who requested the page protection because of the issue and I probably should have mentioned that the discussion was done on a separate forums, which of course you wouldn't have known, but that's my mistake, I should have mentioned it. As for referencing, you've got a point, it's not but neither are the other two (Reds and TFC) so nobody bothered with it. Further, "Redcoats" references the team as opposed to any group of fans of Toronto FC, thus its placement. Finally, the "Redcoats" nickname didn't just come out of nowhere in the last ten days but was often discussed during the off-season, as early as January, if I recall correctly. Again, this was done on the forums so those who don't read them wouldn't know this. Like I said earlier, I am opposed to the "Redcoats" because it's pretty artificial being shoved in our faces by a select few so I won't be upset if it's not reinstated. Anyway, the point of my contacting you was not to discredit your work, just a heads-up that it's a touchy situation. Hope this clears up some of your concerns. Lucky Strike (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke[reply]

Non-notable football clubs

There is no official policy, but it has been consensus at many past AfD debates, i.e.:

There was probably a discussion about it on the WT:FOOTY page if you can trawl through the talk pages to find it. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also see you !voted keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Smith (footballer born 1990). I would urge you to have a look through the debates of the last few articles I nominated for deletion:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Birighitti
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Payne
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Nwokeji
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Bartlett
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Foley
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Holland
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordon Mutch (who has played for Premier League reserves)

before commenting on the Killian AfD. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info, the Conference National is not a fully professional league. There are several semi-pro clubs, whose players are not full-time footballers. These include Histon, Lewes and Altrincham. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start doing this on a regular basis, please read WP:ATHLETE. The guideline states:

"Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league."

As I noted above, the Conference National is not a fully professional league. Please could you go back to all the places where you have misinterpreted this and correct your comments. Thanks, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Most" doesn't count. It has to be "fully". пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting that Stirling Albion spent last season in the Scottish First Division, which is generally accepted to be a fully professional league. Hence any player that played for them last season has played in a fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, as you obviously don't believe that I am representing the policy correctly, please bring it up on WT:FOOTY as I can't be bothered to argue the point anymore. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN was developed by WP:FOOTY but was not accepted by the wider community, so at the moment is meaningless. Plus the Conference is not "almost entirely" professional. Only slightly more than half the teams are fully pro. Altrincham, Barrow, Burton, Crawley, Forest Green, Histon, Lewes, Kettering, Northwich and Salisbury (10 out of 24) are all semi-pro. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above as you were involved in the above discussion and removed a "prod" from one club, I would ask you to have a look at the AfD nominations for some of the clubs involved. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Now I am being accused of "being close to cavassing" for the above message. I should point out that I left the above message on here simply because I knew you were previously involved in this and because I thought you might otherwise not have seen the AfD. I haven't even checked the AfD to see if you voted or not. However, I am taking a short break from wikipedia though but thanks again. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd claim. I'd already remove one prod from the same set of clubs - so surely notifying me was the correct thing to do - particularly as I don't necessarily agree with you, and would be quite happy deleting most of these! Nfitz (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRVs

You are clearly acting in bad faith. Your decision to take the Tommy Smith article to DRV was utterly ridiculous, and the result there only serves to prove that. Just accept that a lot of football related articles are not notable. We don't want to fill the encyclopedia with crap. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a personal attack, it just plain speaking. You are quite clearly out to disrupt the encyclopedia by deliberately messing around people you disagree with. Starting DRVs or questioning admins on every closure you disagree with is pretty bad form. The WP:FOOTYN thing has been explained to you several times - it is not regarded as a guideline or policy. Please give up trying to prove a point, and wasting our time with AfDs or DRVs on players/clubs which are clearly not notable according to our policies or past consensus, and do something useful like starting new articles on notable subjects or expanding existing ones. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there will be no apology - I haven't call you a moron, I've just pointed out that your behaviour is unhelpful. Since the Kilian Elkinson thing started you have made 72 edits, all but 5 of which were related to football articles or AfDs which clearly failed our policies. However, in every case you have attempted to keep them through removing prods, !voting and taking them to DRV. As for saying you agree with me on stuff, why have you opposed all of the three AfDs I created which you voted on. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's all try to calm down. With regards to Tommy Smith, Jason Naidovski, etc. - it seems likely that these players will achieve a level of notability that satisfies Wikipedia's requirements. They're signed to clubs in fully professional leagues, and unless misfortune befalls them, I'm sure they will take the field for those clubs. Anyway, when that occurs, please let me know and I will undelete the articles: see Kazenga LuaLua (AfD1 AfD2 DRV) for an example of a similar situation I assisted with (age-grade rep player, article deleted for failing notability, and then undeleted when he made his high-level debut). --Stormie (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia national under-23 football team 2008 Olympic Games campaign

Yes, probably. However, I'm a bit cross that an no admin noticed that the prod had expired after five days and deleted the article. Would you mind doing the AfD? – Pee Jay 19:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyte

He didn't play in the FA Cup for Arsenal (believe me, I keep track of such things) - Arsenal's match against Barnet was a friendly full of reserve players, and doesn't count, alas. Qwghlm (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

soccer players

alright alright i was playing around but can you at least cut me some slack and delete your comments from my talk page. Whu2000 (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incompatability

The WP EN Indonesia project and the WP IN Indonesia project have two very basic differences - the WP IN utilises little or no sources of the sort that the WP EN english has a major component of the WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V standards by which the English project sustains its credibility. If the WP EN Indonesia were to simply be a 'lift' from the WP IN (as many editors have tried) then the whole WP EN Indonesia would fail the general standards that are utilised by the WP EN as basic criteria - so, on the general issue of the incompatability of the standards of the two projects I would consider your recommendation as well intentioned but problematic Satu Suro 05:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please

In view of what I have said above when i find the following - oh dear we have a very very serious issue here - would you like to have a three page email or do you want a three (five) word summary?

though I'm tempted to simply replace List of universities in Indonesia with it's id:Daftar perguruan tinggi negeri di Indonesia Indonesian version

Please dont doit -

Satu Suro 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please not that an WP EN Indonesian project exists - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia- and that I have placed a comment there - if you ever have the slightest itch to suggest or propose such a move you must place a comment there before doing it as it is a major issue and requires a considerable time lag to wait for comment as some of the editors are not there every day by any stretch of the imagination due to real life commitments . 05:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not interested? - no big deal - clearly you dont seem interested in the issue - well thats fine - cheers Satu Suro 22:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that comments at the AFd would have been sufficient explanation as to what the issues are Satu Suro 00:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK by your last message I dont think you understand much about the problems of the WP Indonesia project - my apologies - also I should apologise about the comment above about you must place a comment - it should have read it would be appreciated if you could take the time to place a comment.

I would suggest that if you dont know about the issues - or cannot understand them from the afd then its up to you whether you want a clarification or explanation in detail or not.

To suggest moving items between projects is a problem and whereever possible is discouraged - regardless of whether it looks better or seems more comprehensive.Satu Suro 00:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in this situation, but I'd note that the guideline Use English, which for this purpose is authoritative, would seem to militate against foreign language names for common items in all but the most exceptional cases in article names. Translation of articles from other language variants when our own are weak is of course encouraged, but it should be noted that transwikied articles are not immune from speedy deletion and other forms of censure applied to new articles on English Wikipedia which fail to meet basic standards (see speedy deletion criteria and regular deletion notes). Also, the need to build consensus for contentious changes is a core policy of the encyclopaedia and one ignores it at considerable peril. Orderinchaos 00:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I said in the above: "Translation of articles from other language variants". I was implying the target language would be English. Orderinchaos 01:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops Waltham Town

The site you link to appears to be wrong - it states that Wessex League 2 was level 10 in 2006-7, however, it was actually level 11 - above it were the

Premier League
Championship
League One
League Two
Conference
Conference South
Southern League Premier
Southern League Division One
Wessex Premier
Wessex One

See Tony Kempster's site for 2006-07 - Wessex One is listed as Step 6 (level 10).

I went through all the articles prior to prodding them and checked them out at the Football Club History Datbase to ensure that they had not met the criteria (see Bishop Waltham Town's entry) - hence me not prodding Locks Heath F.C. who play in the same league, but have played higher. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as noted, they are all 3-5 sentence long prods. As Keeper 76 noted, bundling these is much preferred. Plus, there is no problem with objecting to the deletion of one or more article, but not some others during an AfD - this has happened many times. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, as I said in the AfD, I didn't fancy waiting four days only to see the prod removed and then have to go through another AfD which would be a huge waste of everyone's time as they are clearly all not notable. These teams are identical in terms of their background - local teams who have not played at the relevant level - there is nothing to separate them or their articles. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Benson. This was a mass bundling of articles, of which a couple were found to be notable. There was no problem with editors then !voting to keep some but delete the rest. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted that at exactly the same time! As such, I've withdrawn them from the nomination. However, I can't see any of the other clubs there - Overton, Stoneham, Clanfield, Colden C, Fleetlands, Hamble Club, Otterbourne and Paulsgrove definitely haven't played above Wessex 3 (or 2 as it is now). The renaming definitely makes it confusing... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "League One" etc are just ridiculous names. Anyway, now that's cleared up, I don't suppose you could comment on the remaining articles at the AfD? I know you don't like bundling (if it's any consolation, I didn't include the Winchester Castle F.C. article in the AfD because it is longer and has a local paper reference, so I knew you'd object!) but when it happens you can !vote to keep some and delete others - when there is a genuine mistake in the bundling (as here), it can be pointed out and one article removed from the nomination. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right about Colden Common - I didn't realise that the Wessex League only had one division in the past - I knew it had absorbed the Hampshire Premier once to become its third division, but not that it had done it twice...

However, regarding the others, Hampshire Division One (back then) was still equivalent to Step 7 (i.e. the base of the pyramid) because the Conference North/South hadn't been created as yet. Theoretically I guess we could say most current Step 7 clubs have played at Step 6 in the past (before the creation of the Conference North/South) - or if we went back even further to 1978 (before the Conference), we could say they had been at Step 5. As such, I think we have to regard the Step 5 (1979-2004) as the modern Step 6, and thus Step 6 (1979-2004) as the modern Step 7. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I've asked User:Richard Rundle to help clarify the situation - as the creator of the FCHD, I'm sure he is much better informed than either of us! пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Richard has helpfully produce this, which shows the league history. As such I've removed three more clubs from the nomination. Although some of the remaining played at Level 10 in the 1980s, that is only equivalent to Level 11 today (due to the introduction Conference North/South), so I am minded to delete them. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it needs to be in table form, but it certainly should be explained in the Hampshire League article (to avoid further confusion). Anyway, are you happy with deleting the remaining four articles? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were playing at level ten at that time. However, the level ten of 1999 is today level 11 due to the creation of the Conference North/South in 2004. I believe that we should stick with the equivalent of today's level, otherwise if we go back to pre-1979 (the creation of the Football Conference when Level 10 was the second division of county leagues), we could end up with articles on pub teams playing on park pitches! пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "new" article for Malik Obama----

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weight in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow ( ) 06:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment on my talk page: Hmm, I may well have violated protocol. If so it was inadvertent and also I apologize. Incidentally this is my first venture in this particular "realm." :^) — Justmeherenow ( ) 06:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Incidentally, I'm now thinking it should be merged with a new article for Obama family----? — Justmeherenow ( ) 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prod removals

I see you've removed a couple of prods, citing WP:FOOTYN. However, it isn't policy yet, and articles on players in the Conference continued to be deleted (like the Tommy Smith one you participated in). It may be a good idea to reinstate the prod and avoid wasting time with an AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they clearly fail WP:ATHLETE and will almost certainly be deleted (at least if the closing admin makes the right decision). No offence, but your constant !voting of keep on articles which fail to meet the criteria, as well as the bundling issue, really makes me think that you are on the verge of disrupting the project to make a WP:POINT. If you don't like the guidelines, try and change them (and AfDs isn't the place to do it). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you explain why you are still !voting keep on those four clubs in the Hampshire League? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Clanfield, the article is wrong - they were founded in 1983 as a youth team according to their website. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but teams playing in the second division of county leagues in 1978 have also played at Level 10. I think its clear that we need to stick with Level 10 post-2004, rather than before it, or it really will open up a can of worms. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hampshire was different to most places until the adoption of Wessex 2 - also the same year as the introduction of the Conference regional divisions - with the exception of Essex and Kent, the majority of county leagues are at Level 11. The county is currently messed up as it has two parallel leagues - the Hampshire Premier League and the Hampshire League (2004)... Regarding the Blair children, I would say they all need deleting, and would certainly support it at an AfD. Perhaps you could bundle them? ;) пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few issues

I was originally going to leave you a message regarding your deprodding of the Blofield article, but thought better of it as I didn't want to start another confrontation.

However, your comment on the AfD really suggests that you have a problem.

You are suggesting that I am lying and not including AfDs which have not resulted in delete. This is not the case - I have included the 11 most recent AfDs on such clubs - all of them have resulted in the deletion of all clubs which fail to meet the criteria.
Your statement that "given the number of your club AFDs that you've withdrawn recently" is also rubbish. I haven't withdrawn any AfDs on clubs - I withdrew a few clubs from a single AfD, but that is all.
Sarcastic comment? Where? If you're referrung to my edit summary here, this is not sarcasm. Sarcasm would be something like "Good deprod, well made". Stating that "This is a serious waste of everyone's time" is just an observation.
Lastly, I do not list prods on the project list because I prod so many goddamn pointless articles that the list would be endless. Plus I know that 99% of people on the project share my sentiments on such articles.

I really suggest you re-evaluate your approach to other users here, as you are becoming thoroughly unpleasant to deal with. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"5 of your last 9 AFDs of teams failed. Yes you did link to it, but you overlooked that in your text." Rubbish. I clearly stated that all the teams that failed to meet the criteria were deleted, which is true. Why are you making such a big deal out of the fact that one out of 11 AfDs had some mistakes in?

This isn't about assuming good faith, because you are very clearly not acting in good faith. You have been acting on some personal vendetta since our first disagreement at an AfD (taking those articles to DRV just went to prove it) and are using comments on AfDs and deprodding to make some kind of twisted WP:POINT. As for accusing me of harassing you - what cheek! Seems strange how you end up commenting on almost every AfD I do, and strangely, almost always in the opposite way.

If you want me to assume good faith, how about you start creating some articles (on notable subjects) or expanding existing articles, rather than spending all your time in AfD conflicts. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"5 of your last 9 AFDs of teams failed. Yes you did link to it, but you overlooked that in your text." Rubbish. I clearly stated that all the teams that failed to meet the criteria were deleted, which is true. Why are you making such a big deal out of the fact that one out of 11 AfDs had some mistakes in?

This isn't about assuming good faith, because you are very clearly not acting in good faith. You have been acting on some personal vendetta since our first disagreement at an AfD (taking those articles to DRV just went to prove it) and are using comments on AfDs and deprodding to make some kind of twisted WP:POINT. As for accusing me of harassing you - what cheek! Seems strange how you end up commenting on almost every AfD I do, and strangely, almost always in the opposite way.

If you want me to assume good faith, how about you start creating some articles (on notable subjects) or expanding existing articles, rather than spending all your time in AfD conflicts. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is why are you making such a big deal that I challenged one of your prods. You seemed to prod a couple of dozen articles in the last fortnight, and I unprodded one (I think - I really don't look at whose it was, and I did unprod a couple of others, but they were on the deletion list, so I don't think they were yours). Surely that indicates that I support you 95% of the time. And I've supported - or at least failed to comment because support was overwhelming or I was neutral, on most of the AFDs currently ongoing. I've been mostly commenting on Football-project stuff lately. And most of my editing has been in that area too lately. I really don't see why your commenting that I'm commenting on "almost every AfD" that you do; I think there are several others doing that too - except that you seem to be picking on me because I don't agree with you. I'm looking through on what I've commented on recently, and some I have commented on a long time before you did. And others you didn't comment at all. And oddly here is one non-Football one I commented on, and then you popped in later on ... though I guess you agreed with me ... anyway, I'm thinking you are reading far too much into this. I'm just looking at your edit history ... if I start commenting on Isreali AfDs then there is an issue! In the meantime, can you just bring your comments down a level and try to be civil? Nfitz (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akanni-Sunday Wasiu

Hmmm. The question is, are the leagues fully pro? Given that FK Vilnius' average crowds for the two seasons he was there were 429 and 575 (and others not even over 200) [4], I don't see how it can be. The Polish club were not in the second tier during his season, so I doubt that they were in a fully pro league either (their one season in the second tier in 2001/2 saw an average crowd of 926).[5] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might want to check out my comment at the Michael Ohnesorge AfD - the Scottish season has already started, and he wasn't even a sub for the first game. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Articles don't have to go to DRVs to be restored. You can ask the admin that closed the discussion, or an admin knowledgeable in the field (such as myself) to restore an article as soon as a player makes his debut. It's not that much hassle. A second AfD on the other hand, is. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, but you're forgetting the ultimate rule; Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I can see your point on the Ohnesorge AfD, but there are so many goddamn crap articles out there that I can't watchlist them all and wait a couple of weeks to see if they'd play. The real problem is IPs deprodding them without reason when they clearly fail the critiera. Like I said, I'm always happy to reinstate articles when they've actually played. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you think I'm a stickler for deleting articles, have a look at the opinions of User:EconomistBR - here and here. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that AfDs are a hell of a lot of work for both the nominator and the closing admins, and are a serious waste of time in most cases where an IP has deprodded (I'm sure in 90% of cases it's the article's creator trying to do it anonymously)... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, looks like the team was renamed. Still not 100% sure it's a fully pro league though - I don't recall it ever being mentioned when WP:FOOTY has tried to compile a list. I've asked the editor who added the statement to the article that the clubs "must have professional status" to provide a reference. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the case, but I just want to be sure for future reference. The only thing that concerned me is that a few clubs in the league have sub-1,000 attendances, which is usually the threshold for being professional (at least in the UK). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football AfDs

Thank you for your comments, which I must say I completely disagree with. Firstly, I see nothing wrong with saying "Delete' per nom" if the nominator has cited WikiPolicy as to why an article should be deleted. Secondly, the two articles you suggested should be kept look to be heading towards deletion, as other established WP:FOOTBALL members agree with me and the nominator. And thirdly, as for not helping the project, have a quick look at my edits and my list of articles created page to see what contribution - positive, I hope - I have actually made to both the Project and Wikipedia as a whole. Regards, Giant Snowman 16:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.cricket

I referenced the wrong AfD in the prod - should have been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.soccer. Would you mind reinstating? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Simon_Thomas_.28footballer.29 which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Stifle (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very long

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Admins can take hours, if not days to respond."

You might be interested in learning that thanks to exciting new developments in template technology, admins may now be summoned using {{Admin!}} and it's associated category CAT:HALP. Regards, Skomorokh 11:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Nfitz (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Sukuta-Pasu

As noted several times, though not necessarily in that AfD, football players generate large amounts of coverage due to the media saturation of the sport. It is therefore a totally unrealistic barometer of notability. For example, a part-time footballer in the Conference will have more media coverage than the King of Tonga, when it's quite clear that one is more notable than the other. One could probably find enough media articles solely about players at the 10th level of English football to justify WP:N, when such players are clearly not notable. Also, it has long been consensus that caps at youth level do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I've amended the closing statement to reflect the above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there were 826 articles in the week previous when to July 31, 2008. That's a lot of coverage, far more than I've ever seen before in one of these AfDs, to tell the truth. And significant as well - feature article in Bild, perhaps the largest newspaper in Europe - [6]. I'm really astounded that there is any debate that he meets WP:N.

(not sure about you point about the King of Tonga - he's had more local newspaper coverage in the last week than any Conference football player I know. 357 articles internationally in the last week [7])

I'd really rather not start another DRV, but I don't feel that there is any alternative. I admit some of the ones I argued for are either borderline, or straddling the WP:CRYSTAL issue. But I think this one is different. Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we have differing opinions on the matter, but I felt this case was borderline (the others were quite clear deletion candidates to me and most other project members). I think we need to step back and look at the wider picture. Here we have a young footballer who has never played for a professional club, but has played in a final in a youth tournament (and whilst he scored, it was not the winner, and he was not top scorer). Obviously he will get mentioned in the press a lot during the week of the tournament, but when he returns to his club and sits in the reserves, that coverage will dry up. Like Tim McLean (who has 1,675 news hits at the moment) this is a WP:ONEEVENT situation; details about him should be included in the tournament article (which they are), but he is not yet deserving of an article. If he never plays for a professional club (being a youth international is no guarantee - football magazines run regular features on players who won youth caps but never actually played professionally), will he be notable in 20 years time just for playing in a youth tournament? I suspect the answer is no. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Brash

Regarding Alex Brash, you missed the discussion which resulted in the prod being replaced after it had been mistakenly removed. The Scottish First Division was not fully pro at the time, and Brash has even said that he never played professionally.[8] Can you reinstate the prod. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Also, for info, it's traditional to link to the AfD rather than the redlink when adding DRVs to the WP:FOOTY list. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not stalking you. I have the article on my watchlist as I placed the prod on it. I might ask the same question given your deprodding of the Rec.sport.cricket article (an area in which you don't seem to have edited before). Also, you never responded to my question above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Stankovic, the info is on my talk page. He definitely played for one second division club (at the time when the league was regional and had 40 clubs in) and was at another club in the same league previously, but no appearances are recorded. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I think the point is still made that media coverage is well biased towards footballers. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability

As the above link clearly states, a footballer is not notable unless making an appearance in a fully professional league/competition or played at the senior level for a national team. I don't know if you read this over or not because your rationale for removing PROD's for various articles has no backing. If wikipedia went by your way of thinking, there would be thousands of articles for players that never even played a single game in their life which is rediculous. And your statement about Bill Clinton still makes no sense. Bill Clinton is not an athlete and is not notable for being an athlete, making WP:ATHLETE a useless tool for his article.

Just because Koroma has internet articles written about him doesn't make him notable either. There are articles about high school track athletes or badminton players on various websites, but we don't make wikipedia articles about them because they aren't notable. Do you get what I'm saying? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cretaro

The FAI Premier League is not fully pro - only some of the clubs are full time (until a couple of years ago, only Shelbourne were), so he can't pass WP:ATHLETE. The AfD on the Danish player was a mess due to confusion over the status of the Danish Second Division (certainly not helped by the guy who told me it was a mix of fully- and semi-pro teams arriving to say it was a full time league...) and certain other users totally ignoring the facts. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't treat it as fully pro because it isn't, and it's not even close to being a similar situation to the modern Belgian or Scottish First Division (with occasionally one semi-pro team). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL

Per WP:CRYSTAL, I believe that one can say that the 2008 Olympics will take place or that High School Musical 3 will be released. Signing a player, and especially a young player, on loan does not necessarily guarantee that he will play. It is clear that I have a strict interpretation of "Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative." and you do not. I am disagreeing with you, but I think both of our interpretations are entirely legitimate. Like many Wikipedia policies - although perhaps not WP:ATHLETE, which I feel the article does not meet - there is plenty of room for plurality of interpretation. Rje (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do actually have some sympathy with your argument, which is why I didn't mention CRYSTAL in my initial statement. My problem is that WP:ATHLETE is clear and succinct - you are notable if you play - whereas entering the realm of the hypothetical is not. Even though there is legitimate reason to think that this player will play at some point - although I would hesitate to suggest that it is a certainty, because nothing in football is - I really don't like the grey area that it would introduce into these discussions. It is much easier to talk about whether a player has played or not than it is to come to a decision about the likelihood of him playing or not. CRYSTAL is a clumsy weapon to be sure, but it is much easier than having irresolvable, hypothetical arguments. Rje (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Likeliness"

There's no evidence that any of the three players in question are "likely" to play, thus keeping them would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. --Jimbo^[online] 12:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Prince Chunk

Please contribute to current discussion on the AfD for Prince Chunk.--DrWho42 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish leagues

No idea, though I would assume the second tier is not fully professional until proven otherwise. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korcan Çelikay

You might want to rethink your !vote, as the link you've cited [9] is actually a third division "A" team game (note that the team is Tesisler, not Besiktas). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Yüsüf Öztürk AfD, I've closed it as keep due to this, but I wouldn't advise using other Wikis as a source (there are plenty of wrong stats on this one - some editors are sneaky and "add" appearances to stop them being deleted...). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have to go to DRV; simply asking would have been enough, and avoided work for other editors. You might also want to rethink your comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waide_Fairhurst as neither player even made the bench for the first match of the season.[10] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rielle Hunter

No I did not know so thanks for letting me know. However I personally am not going to take any action. The article never went through an AFD before and it is significantly different to the previous versions so there is no grounds for speedy deletion that I can see. Either consensus will leave an article in existence, or a redirect will be agreed on the talk page, or it will end up on AFD. I don't have a strong opinion myself so am just going to stay out of it! Thanks again though. Davewild (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block Review

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

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

Request reason:

When I edit, I'm getting a note that my account has been blocked for sexual harrasment???? What??? There is no notification/explanation on my user page. And it notes that it's from a DRV comment where I suggested the admin who deleted the article should be spanked? Perhaps I was out of line, but what on earth has spanking got to do with sexual harrasment?? One spank someone as discipline when they make a mistake - I'm offended that anyone would think it has anything to do with sex! Clearly the userbox was meant to be humourous, and was very similiar to the userboxes that were the subject of the DRV. I really think the admin in question has completely misread the whole thing. Perhaps it was in bad taste, but if so, I think it would have been better to contact me than to start making accusation of sexual harrasment - I'm just shocked. Can someone review this ban?

Decline reason:

I agree that a week without a warning seems a little excessive, but then you have a record. We can reconsider this after three days. Given the comment and the context in which it appeared, a block of some kind is defensible and within administrative discretion, although personally I would have just deleted it and warned you not to restore it. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nfitz (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't suggest Krimpet "should be spanked," but rather that Krimpet's userpage should be branded with a mark that "This user likes to be spanked," which I will note is a rather different tone from that you seem to be suggesting now. While I'm not sure a week-long block was called for immediately, I have to agree that the comment was both disrespectful and out of line. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

see below:

In retrospect, the comment I made does seem inappropriate and in bad taste. I made it in the context of the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 4#User:Bluedenim/Blondes where it was clear that User:Krimpet had inappropriately removed several similiar boxes. I was trying to make a WP:TROUT-like comment. In retrospect I should have said something else.
If I offended anyone, I apologise, that was not the intent.
WP:BLOCK and WP:DISRUPT talk about staring off by assuming WP:FAITH and that blocks should be used for persistant harassment. As this was a single edit, that I would have happily removed had someone said something, it seems to me that a block was overkill when the same could have been accomplished by just dropping me a message.
As to my previous block - my record so to speak - during that 24-hour block I followed the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Additional information#Emailing us and got the response "Personally, I don't think the block against you was valid either, and it's rather depressing to see how many admins refused your unblock request. I would have unblocked you early, but I guess it took more than 24 hours to dig deep enough into this to figure out what happened.". Later I followed this up in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive42#User:LessHeard_vanU. I'm unsure how this previous block can be used against me under the circumstances.
I'm very concerned about the finding of Sexual Harassment on my record. To me that seems to like branding someone with a scarlet letter. As people seem to look at the block log without looking at the context surrounding it, how do I go about having this accusation removed?
Finally, I don't think there is a risk here that I'm going to continue to "harass". WP:BLOCK notes that "The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior". As such, I think that the purpose of the block has been served here (as would have a note on my talk page), and I ask that it be lifted.

Decline reason:

No, this block appear well deserved and of an appropriate length. — MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to me "sexual harassment" is a quite precise description of what you did. Actions have consequences. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly the sexual connotations of spanking someone not once crossed my mind when I posted what I did. Perhaps I'm naive, but that's not where my mind goes when saying someone should be spanked - yucky ... In retrospect I see that the ambiguity of what I wrote could be misread, and I've apologised for that. However I ask that people assume WP:FAITH, and that I was only trying to make an innocent joke. Trust me, I realise where I went wrong, and it won't be repeated. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: I am considering this unblock request. I have contacted the blocking admin to discuss it. Tan ǀ 39 19:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the block's duration to another day, because, while the comments were out-of-line however they were intended (as sexual or not), the intention to offend/intimidate doesn't seem to be there for a one-week block to be appropriate. — Werdna • talk 08:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the review, and I can live with timeframe. However I must take issue with the use of the term "Sexual Harrasment". These are very loaded words; according to harrassment "Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances, typically in the workplace, where the consequences of refusing are potentially very disadvantageous to the victim". Even if my comment was interpreted in a sexual way (and I admit in retrospect that people might do that, even if it wasn't how it was intended), I don't think there is the persistant nature there to make it sexual harrassment. I'd appreciate if you would register a more typical "disruptive edit" finding in the block log, rather than the very loaded "sexual harrassment". Nfitz (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple people who each, on one occasion, make an environment hostile to the opposite sex due to comment such as this, may be considered sexual harassment. I can bring up some cases if you like :-) — Werdna • talk 11:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a) I have no idea the sex of the person involved (though I'd guess it's probably identifiable somehow), nor do you have any indication of my sex. b) I intended no sexual connotations from what I wrote any more than I would intend sexual connotations if I made a comment about someone kissing the feet of someone else - even though both the perversions of foot fetishes and spanking fetishes exist. While I admit an extreme one-time event might be harrassment, as there is no intent here, there is no harrassment. Look at my edit history - is there anything, anywhere with any sexual connotations? I've never come anywhere near the subject, outside of this comment. It was a poorly thought out joke that the deletor in the DRV should be disciplined for deleting the templates without going throught the correct procedure; nothing more.

The charge of "sexual harrassment" is pretty big; perhaps even a personal attack. To make the accusation is a failure of WP:FAITH. I'm not sure why you simply didn't drop me a message with your concern, as I'd have immediately removed my comment if I realised how others would see it, rather than shooting first and asking questions later, creating an unnecessary wikidrama. Once again, I ask you to remove the sexual harrassment from the log. Nfitz (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the relevant comment is in the block summary. Any user viewing your block log and making judgements based on it presumably has the sense to follow the link and see for themselves. — Werdna • talk 10:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar 'OJ' Koroma

The votes were WP:CRYSTAL violations. There was no way those editors could have known that he was "almost certain" to make his debut unless they are called Glenn Roeder. The fact that he played in pre-season is totally irrelevant; clubs often use it as a chance to check out how their youngsters are progressing. He wasn't even in the starting line up for the game, and had Norwich been winning, he probably wouldn't have played. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Roeder had made little secret that Koroma was a key part of his first team. In addition to the August 4thBBC article that indicated that Portsmouth intended him to have first team experience at Norwich, we also had the August 2nd Sporting Life article that said that "Glenn Roeder has vented his frustration at the red tape which has prevented him from fielding his strongest side in pre-season.. (though with all these articles about his signing - [11], perhaps the basis of the argument should have been WP:BIO. Anyway, given all these articles, I think that "almost certain" was met before he walked onto the field. Nfitz (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBC bold

Hi, I see you recently moved the article name bold (TV channel) to CBC bold, thanks for the edits, but that is not the official name of the channel, its official name is simply bold so the article name should reflect that. Yes, the CBC, and only the CBC does sometimes refer to the channel as CBC Bold but that is merely a marketing thing that the CBC does to let the public know that CBC owns this channel. The article needs to be moved bakc ot its original name, but the sentence after its name in the first sentence can say (often referred to as CBC Bold). Thanks musimax. (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the CRTC list of category 1 and 2 channels - [12]. According to that the official name is Bold (as opposed to bold ... bpm:tv interestingly is lower-case. This is also what is listed on [13]. Announcers on CBC during the Olympics have referred to it as CBC Bold. Globe & Mail have been calling it CBC Bold. Whole thing looks like a CBC mess-up, sigh. I suppose I can live with Bold (TV channel). Hmm, I'm just noticing you've done this already - but instead of moving the page, you've just moved all the text to the redirect - and the redirect to the text. However the problem with this is the edit history is all on the redirect. You should move the article properly, so the history stays with the article. I'd fix it myself, but for complicated reasons I can't first hand change it. Nfitz (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deprods

No, that's the Scottish First Division which is fully pro. The Second and Third are semi pro. Can you reinstate the prods? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot Sean Mackle. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, but that doesn't make any diffence as to him failing WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to reconsider. There is no doubt that it will be deleted, and will just be a huge waste of everyone's time. People are getting very sick of AfDs at the moment. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was your rationale for the Doncaster players AfD. The Scottish season has been going for a few weeks now, and he's nowhere near the first team. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it was you who deprodded them and forced the AfD on everyone. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding an article forces an AfD. These articles should not be on Wikipedia full stop. The fact that it is X amount of time until the start of the season is totally irrelevant, and to remove a prod based on that argument is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. We can never assume that someone will play until they actually do, or the starting line up for a game is announced by the club. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. You could take it to WP:ANI if you really want. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do do anything, I would say it was a pretty pointless exercise as several other users (including a fellow admin) agreed that it was indeed crystal balling. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try the talk page of the WP:CRYSTAL policy, i.e. Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Mackle

Seeing as you reversed removing the prods on the other Hearts youngsters who have been loaned to semi-pro clubs, could you please also reverse the removal of the prod notice on Sean Mackle? Thanks. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Forget it, I see on Number57's talk page you want this one to go to AFD as a test. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elkinson

I've asked the article's creator to prove otherwise, but the national cap thing appears to be a hoax. According to the FIFA website he hasn't played for them (or even been a sub). As such (and given the record of the creator on creating non-noable articles), I've prodded it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator removed the claim that he'd played for Bermuda. As such, I speedy deleted it under WP:CSD#G4 as it was effectively a copy of the one deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilian Elkinson. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilshere

Think you've made a mistake here - he didn't play - he was an unused sub.[14] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. He still fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played. I would strongly advise withdrawing the DRV, as filing one less than 24 hours after the last one closed doesn't look good. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Jack Wilshire

I have asked for a second deletion review of Jack Wilshire. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. as fully expected he started today for Arsenal F.C.. Could an Admin please restore the article ASAP so as to not waste someone who knows no better's time starting to write a new article from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page will not be restored until and unless its deletion is overturned at WP:DRV. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Wilshere

Done. Sorry--completely missed that the first time you asked. Cheers, Chick Bowen 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helping the project

I think we both know whose pointy edits are not helpful to the project - perhaps if you spent less time forcing AfDs (the vast majority of which end in delete) or DRVs (100% unsuccess rate) then we wouldn't have to worry about time wasting. Also, at least check your google news hits - most of them were about someone else - add Queen's Park and you get less than 30. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, give up on the WP:Stalking. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a personal attack, it's a fact. It's quite clear that you are following me around (via my contributions history) to disrupt the project by deliberately forcing AfDs in cases where you have been told by multiple editors that your beliefs about things like top divisions being notable regardless of professional status are not shared by others. I have no problem with you removing a prod on an article where you find evidence that the subject meets the criteria, but on the vast majority of occasions you know full well that the subject fails WP:ATHLETE yet you still go ahead and do it. I think the question we're all asking is why do you persist with this behaviour? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I just can't believe that you are only here to try and advance the project - certainly in early and mid August you did almost nothing but drag out AfDs on non-notable footballers and did virtually nothing in the project space. What it looks like to me is that you have some form of personal grudge going back to the first AfD we clashed on and that since then you've deliberately tried to keep almost every article I've attempted to delete. And like I said, I'm not the only editor from WP:FOOTY who is tired of your behaviour on deletion issues. Anyway, it's clear that we cannot work together constructively, so it's probably best to just avoid each other. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - I was also thinking of offering the same compromise (regarding listing the prods - I assume this means you will not deprod them unless you have evidence of them meeting WP:ATHLETE and leave it up to other WP:FOOTY members to decide?). Regarding closing AfDs that you've been involved in but I haven't - I can't close them if I've been involved. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adem Ljajić

Good enough. If he played in even 1 Serbian Superliga match, he passes WP:ATHLETE in my view. I couldn't find a single source for him playing and noticed he moved from a lower-tier club during 2008, so I suspected he hadn't made a debut. If you don't mind, please add the source for his appearance to the article when you have a chance. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE

Hi I have started a disccusion here and here would you like to comment. BigDunc^Talk 09:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lydd Town F.C.‎

For 2003-04 the Tony Kempster site doesn't show steps, it shows levels (this was before the steps were introduced) - the following season when steps were introduced, the KCL was classed as Step 7 - like the Essex Intermediate League (all of whose club's articles have been deleted) it has never been a Step 6 league (hence no-one objecting to the other ten articles being deleted earlier in the week. Can you reinstate the prod so save the hassle of an AfD? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no promotion/relegation between the two - clubs in the KCL can apply to join the Kent League but it's not a given right - similar to the old Football League pre-1987. Anyway, that is not really the point - it's a Step 7 league and there is clear consensus that that's the cut-off point. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't really level 9 though, as shown by the fact that the season when the steps were made official by the FA, it was classed as 7 and not 6. All the Essex Olympian and KCL clubs have been deleted without issue, so I don't see why we need to drag out an AfD for a three-sentence article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stansfeld O&BC F.C. for one. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green shift

Sorry, missed the messages (as they're halfway down the page rather than at the top and there must have been other ones at around the same time). I've restored Green shift as a redirect to the environment section of the election article - it didn't say anything beyond what was in the main article already.

Regarding the Boyd deprod, you've put in the edit summary that "Plays in top tier of professional football in Northern Ireland". Unlike the Republic's league (where there are a few), there are no fully professional clubs in the Northern Irish league. It even states in the article that he is a semi-pro footballer. Can you reinstate it (and the Robbie White one)? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbs

The article talk page would be a good place as well as Wikipedia:Proposed mergers were other characters are also mentioned. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my !vote I did say only referenced material should be merged (if I didn't, I should have). If you can reference any of the excised info with reliable sources, feel free to reintroduce it in the list entry and be careful about overusing plot details. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would object to a DRV. I didn't take my own keep into account when I closed. The article was originally merged, and someone contested it. The correct course of action is either to merge because the contesting didn't provide valid reasons, or find consensus for the merge. There had been discussion, but there was no agreement yet. Avoiding forming consensus by nominating for deletion instead is a gross violation of policy.

Also with the article already merged, deleting the history of the originating article would result in a GFDL violation (all edits to material that is kept should be stored) - Mgm|^(talk) 01:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McWomble merged part of the article before he nominated the page for deletion. Deleting a history pertaining to material that has been merged is a violation of core policy. Whether the merge was correct (how much material was merged, or whether it should've been merged at all) is not something that should be discussed at AFD. AFD is for deletion discussions. By the way, from your actions on the article, I'm getting the impression you want it kept without alterations at all; fighting the outcome could encourage McWomble to nominate the list of characters for deletion too and it doesn't sound you'd want that to happen. I strongly recommend you not to file a deletion review, but if you do I'll repeat the first two sentences I wrote in this comment: deleting the history of merged material is a violation of policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It's a bad omission on my part, I only noticed a few minutes ago the DRV already existed. I discuss so many pages, I get things mixed up and forgotten. I hope you can accept my most humble apology for not mentioning it before. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parlimentary crisis discussion

Hi Nfitz:

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I replied there. CBHA (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Richardson

Is this guy sometimes nicknamed "Jackie Chan"? The version I deleted was so spammy that I'm reluctant to restore it other than to a sandbox. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Nfitz/Gregory Richardson. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O'Brian White

I am making a point, but not the one you think I'm making. As you rightly said, I asked for leniency with regard to new draftees several weeks before the 2009 draft took place, and was shouted down by the majority of footy editors, citing the policies at WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. So, I've simply been enforcing the standards they wanted - that any player, irrespective of anything they have done as an amateur, is inherently non-notable until they actually play a professional game somewhere. Now, for the USA, there is clearly a grey area with regard to people like Cronin and White, in that college sports are much more of a "big deal" than they are anywhere else in the world, and it is my opinion that new draftees - and ONLY new draftees - should have a notability clause in WP:FOOTYN so that we don't have situations exactly like the one we're in now. The reason it has to have college soccer specificity is because we have to ensure that people who want to write articles about seventh-tier non league players in England can't use cases like this as precedent for amateurs. I got absolutely no response before, so I'm just upholding the policy decision, with the additional hope that it stirs up discussions like these. So, the bottom line, is that I actually *AGREE* with you in overall policy, but am adhering to the current notability guidelines until we can change them. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Patch Boys Discussion Board

Hey, I wonder if you could do me a favor. I noticed that I'm getting all kinds of bad-mouthing on the Cronin thread over at the Red Patch Boys discussion board, and wanted to post a message there to set the record straight, but for some reason the computer I'm using won't let me register, so I was wondering if you could post a message there on my behalf:

"TFC Fans - I realize you're frustrated about my continually flagging articles for deletion on Wikipedia, but I just wanted to set the record straight about why I'm doing what I'm doing, and why I'm not being an "asshat" or a "Wiki-Nazi". Believe it or not, but I'm actually on your side of the argument. Months and months ago I proposed to the Wiki Footy Editors that articles on new MLS draftees be allowed, to recognize the fact that the US collegiate system is very different from every other amateur set-up in the world, and to avoid the endless rounds of deleting articles that happens EVERY year after the draft. However, all the editors shouted me down, citing the notability guidelines and the fact that, under the current policy, NO players are inherently notable until they play a pro game. I've been editing footy articles on Wikipedia for nearly three years, and one of the things you quickly learn is that you HAVE to adhere to policy and consensus if you want to make a positive contribution; so I did exactly that, by sticking rigidly to the policy decision about new draftees, even though I personally don't agree with it.

My ulterior motive was to try to initiate a discussion about the notability of college soccer players, and as a result of me flagging the articles on Cronin, Hall and White, that it exactly what has happened. My goal is for the editors to agree to a clause in the football notability guidelines that would allow for articles on new MLS draftees - and ONLY new MLS draftees - to be created, because of the very special circumstances of notability for US college soccer players. So, please, be patient; I'm geniunely am not being a wiki-Nazi or a troublemaker and I don't have a vendetta against TFC or its players - I'm trying to affect a change through the proper channels of Wikipedia to make a policy better. That's all.

Please do keep contributing to Wikipedia, because the more people make positive and constructive contributions, the better a resource it will be for everyone. Just remember to knock off the bad language and accusations of asshattery ;) Thanks guys.

--Jon Broxton"

I'd be very grateful if you could post this for me. Thanks man! --JonBroxton (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, me not joining the board is not a choice - it's a technical thing. My computer doesn't want to recognize the registration process and I don't know why. Oh, well. Thanks anyway. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies (report)

Hi there NFITZ, VASCO here,

I just saw your analysis to my report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#.28NEW.29_Football_vandal), and must admit that i was a little "over the edge", it's just that vandalism really gets me going, i did it all for the sake of the site. As for the (in your view) non-existence of foul language i disagree and provide another example, retrieved from same article as the first (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salva_Ballesta&diff=next&oldid=269917615), at least the language was foul in intent, instead of being in content.

Anyway, i apologize for any incovenience, will do much better the next time. From Portugal, keep up the good work,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies necessary! It's certainly annoying when kids do that. Nfitz (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quintuple

Hi Nfitz. I'd just like to say that Chandler is way off in the deletion debate. My initial statement for deletion is probably a weaker argument than I could've used. My much clearer point is to say that none of the sources define exactly what "The Quintuple" is, indeed most do not refer to it as a capitalised and "The" prefixed phrase. The entire references of the work would be more suited to an article named "Manchester United's possible quintuple winning season". I realise that it is likely that any quintuple victory would specifically relate to a certain team who were in that position but whilst ideas of "The Double" and "The Treble" are quite well established, "The Quintuple" is not clearly defined and hasn't been won by any team in the way that the article currently describes it. Remember that quintuple is merely a word meaning five times, thus extrapolating "The Quintuple" from an article that describes a possible quintuple could constitute Original Research. Just thought I'd give you my rationale. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then! To be honest I would never read any of those papers so I wouldn't know that they used it. Feel free to use them to sort out the article! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Edwards and Declan Ingoldsby

Hello. I noticed that you removed the PRODs for these articles. While I understand that some League of Ireland footballers might pass WP:N, that is because they have multiple reliable sources presented in the article. One of these articles, on Ingoldsby, has been unreferenced for more than 2 years, and the other has been unreferenced for nearly three months. Clearly neither satsify WP:N in their current states. Could you help out by adding even one reliable source to them? I've left notes with the articles' creators, but haven't received a response. Otherwise, I will send them to AfD. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I didn't realize there was a consensus that playing in the LOI was sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE. I'll see if I can find the discussion in the archives. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

League of Ireland PRODs

You removed the PRODs on Declan Edwards and Declan Ingoldsby, claiming that there is prior consensus at WP:FOOTBALL that the League of Ireland, a semi-pro league, can be considered fully-pro because it is "nearly there." Could you point me in the direction of the discussion(s) where such consensus was made? Regards, Giant Snowman 16:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? You were instrumental in that debate: [15] ... Nfitz (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd hardly say 'instrumental'...but I won't take these players to AfD. Cheers, Giant Snowman 10:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baird

I have brought your de-archiving against consensus to the attention of the administrators' noticeboard here. Please do not repeat your actions. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately linked to the discussion, so any administrators wishing to review the situation can draw their own conclusions about what consensus was. But I just reread the discussion, and I'm baffled as to how you don't see a consensus to archive. Bearcat, Ground Zero, Disembrangler, and I were all unambiguously favour of archiving. You opposed it. And you're correct, I did inadvertantly exclude a small comment of yours ("Sorry to restore this ... but someone objected to me adding the comment in the archive, so I've had to restore the discussion. Though archiving a discussion that's still active isn't right. Particularly when discussions that have been here for years are untouched."). I apologize for that and I'm not sure how I managed it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was archived because a consensus of editors felt that there was no longer any need for it to be on the article's talk page, where it was only one step removed from being in the article. And the conversation essentially *was* over; you kept thinking that you had points to make, but no new blood was coming in (despite it having been fairly widely posted) and nobody's opinions were changing. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, your groundless accusations of anti-gay bigotry have grown tiresome. Bearcat is a gay New Democrat. I'm not gay, but I provide enough information about myself on my user page that some judicious googling would likely lead you to a pretty complete description of my political views, and you'd have a hard time concluding on the basis of those that I'm either biased against gays or for Conservatives. Please stop ascribing to bigotry what can be explained by a desire to protect a subject's privacy. Second, on the notion of censorship, WP:NOTCENSORED says "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy...will also be removed". Now, you don't think that this violated BLP, I get that. But the rest of us do. So if by "censorship" you mean "moving information that could be construed as violating a subject's policy to a less visible location", then you're damned right we engage in censorship, and I don't think we owe anybody any apologies for it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may take it as an indication that your most recent posts have convinced me that there is little to gain from continuing to interact with you about this. If you stand by your pledge not to de-archive against consensus anymore, I think we're done here, and I'm glad of it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No additional apologies are warranted, and none will be forthcoming. You repeatedly edit-warred against consensus in an attempt to leave BLP-violating speculation in as visible a place as possible. The rescission of my call for you to be blocked is based only on your commitment to cease your problematic behaviour. Now, we are done here: please do not post on my talk page again unless it is about a new issue. I do not enjoy interacting with you, and plan on doing it as little as I can in the future. Right now, that means none at all. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the situation is completely unresolved. You've done nothing to resolve the situation, and have only served make it more complicated. At the same time you have violated Wikipedia policy without repent. When challenged on the issue you ask that I stay off the talk page. Fine, I'll stay off your talk page; and you can stay off mine. We'll have to deal with this through other processes. Nfitz (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of pro leagues and WP:Athlete

Hi, you may like to comment at the below talk page link. Cheers. Eldumpo (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Definition of Fully Pro League

David O'Connor (footballer)

Sorry, but I won't reverse the decision, as it was made using primary source facts. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link you referred me to states "a disinterested (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin". I did not participate in the deletion discussion. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Nick Griffin appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does inserting the opinion of a columnist do to improve this article, especially as it appears to have little basis in fact? And why is it in the lead only, and not the article body? And what if Nick Griffin doesn't admire Mein Kampf? And why insert a comment about his sinking of boats, when it reported on only by a tabloid, and the BBC (who conducted the interview)?

These are the reasons why I reverted your edits. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the ease of reading, I will reply on my own talk page since Nev1 has become involved. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal balling

I imagine Wikipedia baffles anyone who spends more than a couple of seconds thinking about it. Huge academic effort is ~~wasted~~expended failing to rationalise the decision-making processes of even small organisations, and Wikipedia is certainly not a small organisation. It's a choice, I suppose, either keep on banging your head against a constantly-moving brick wall, or accept that it doesn't make sense but keep on banging your head anyway :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orion 17 (and all the others...)

Regarding your comments in the AFD - I've posted a general proposal at Talk:List of Constellation missions, about merging them all together. Hopefully more AFDs won't be needed! Shimgray | talk | 23:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masis Voskanian

Hello again. I've looked carefully for WP:RS related to this footballer, and I really don't think he passes the general notability guideline, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE since he has yet to play in a fully-pro league (or even the Belgian First Division). Please feel free to comment as I've sent it to AfD. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note about the re-creation of this article. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Hamilton

Why on earth did you delete the PROD from David Hamilton (footballer)? The Irish league is not fully pro, so he fails WP:ATHLETE, he has barely any sources so he fails WP:GNG, therefore he shouldn't have an article. End Of. Big Dom 08:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Doumbia

Thank you for the note about this article. I've added the source, and I won't send it to AfD for now. However, this athlete has never played above the CFA level (the amateur fourth level of French football), but as you pointed out the Parisian media probably has written a few articles about him so he may pass WP:N. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is not required for a redirect

See Talk:Daniel Greenberg for details. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the page disturbs you that much, perhaps you should simply fix it, rather rather than being a Wikilawyer. If you feel the page shouldn't be there, it should either be merged, or go through an AfD (or an RfD). If it is to be merged, you actually have to merge the content, rather than just eliminating it ... and it's normally considered proper form to have a discussion before doing so, unless there are no objections. You've followed neither of these paths. If feel that the person is indeed not notable, there shouldn't be a redirect either. Simply removing the content without following process is not a solution. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts had no basis in policy, so reverting them was not "being a Wikilawyer." Likewise your strident demands have no basis in policy. Might I suggest that you cease and desist telling people what to do unless and until you have a policy basis for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I will thank you not to leave false accusations on my talkpage. WP:REDIRECT is not WP:BLANKing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- It wasn't an accusation. Whatever you want to call it then for "removing content from Wikipedia" ... I'll let you pick the word ... no prejudice intended. Nfitz (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's 'wikilawyering' now? Redirection of articles that fail WP:NOTE and removal of material that fails WP:V is "standard editorial practice" (I 'picked' three words) and completely in line with policy. I also draw your attention to the notice at the top of my talkpage: "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it." Please desist in attempting to recreate this thread on my talkpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Sudbury school. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the talk page seemed to be that the content should be there. You know damn well that these template warnings aren't supposed to be used in edit conflicts! Nfitz (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no firm consensus, just some bitching about the earlier merge. In any case, a local consensus cannot override a flagrant violation of WP:V. I know nothing of your purported prohibition -- it certainly isn't contained in WP:WARN. I also draw your attention to the notice at the top of my talkpage: "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it." Please desist in attempting to recreate this thread on my talkpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Sudbury school. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ([16][17][18], Comment from an uninvolved editor pointing out that the removal of this unsourced material was appropriate). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly warning someone that you might try and get them banned because of an edit dispute one is involved with is a gross violation of WP:EW Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war. Such behaviour by an experienced user such as User:Hrafn is disgraceful and clearly a violation of WP:CIV and WP:FAITH. Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-unsourced3}} is the standard template for warning editors who, after a previous warning, continue to obstinately violate WP:V, as you have done on Sudbury school. If you don't like the warning, then don't keep violating the policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's what it is - but it's designed for when someone adds nonsense ... not for minor editing issues, when the text that is "unverified" is supported by references already in the same section, that then meets verifiability simple by repeating the reference a few times. It's a complete and total abuse of the intent of that template to use it as a personal weapon in an edit war! Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, yet again -- "when someone adds nonsense" = {{Uw-error3}}. If the material "meets verifiability simple by repeating the reference a few times", then you should have done this in the first place, NOT simply edit-warred to restore the material. Behaviour like yours is EXACTLY what this template is for. Your spurious and histrionic claim that it is a "total abuse" is laughable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is clearly continues to violate WP:CIVIL and makes personal attacks. No further communication with this user is warranted. Nfitz (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, please stop trying to dig a hole for yourself. If you want content kept in articles, provide verification or the information will be removed in accordance that policy. Attacking other editors for your failure to follow policy is not a good move. dave souza, talk 17:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could point to any text currently tagged for requiring verification I'd be happy to do so, as I have always done; I'm not seeing any. The only disupte that seems outstanding seems to be whether Daniel Greenberg, which while I think is pretty clear, should be dealt with at AfD if others think he is not. Nfitz (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag Arbitration

Hello. I mentioned you and referenced your Wikipedia posts in a recently-filed request for arbitration. I therefore thought it appropriate to notify you of the fact.

The request is at Rjanag Arbitration.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC and the prior RfA, and discussed Rjanag's conduct with him.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

--Epeefleche (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Nick Griffin, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Parrot of Doom 11:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because you disagree with another editor, doesn't mean you should start throwing around 3rd degree warning templates when you don't like what they wrote; I made a single, well referenced, edit this month; I can't even remember the last time I even looked at that article. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to discuss it on Talk before you start violating Wikipedia policy. Nfitz (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with any of my actions, you're welcome to take them to WP:RFC or anywhere else you feel is appropriate. Parrot of Doom 15:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The place I feel that is appropriate is with the user themselves ... that is the first course of action that Wikipedia recommends. Obviously if the user in question doesn't mend their ways then other action should be taken; but it would be uncivil to do otherwise! Nfitz (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question doesn't care what you think, and isn't interested in what you have to say. The user in question wants you to escalate this through the appropriate channels, and to stop filling his talk page with nonsense arguments and baseless threats over policies you have not grasped the purpose of. Parrot of Doom 23:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question doesn't seem to know the difference between whose talk pages are who. Consider yourself reprimanded, go away, and place nice. Bye. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elvijs Putniņš

If he makes a first team appearance, leave me a message and I'll restore the article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading list

I'm looking now [19]. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion, and I note that the other editor, User:Hrafn has submitted two versions of the article; your version, and one he claims for himself.

I would prefer to see the Daniel Greenberg article remain in the knowledge base, and I would choose to keep this [20] version, at least as a starting point (for what is essentially a stub article about a somewhat notable educator.) The information is essentially unchanged from your edit, but if you're asking for an opinion, it comes down to the prose writing style of the version that I prefer.

If anybody wants to see this article Kept, Merged, or Deleted, I am considering listing this at WP:AFD just to get a broader input from uninvolved editors. Ideas or comments are welcome in this space. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly tied to one version or another, and have no concerns about the prose itself. The one concern I have with that version is that it relies on a single source ... and yet at the same time User:Hrafn has compained about a lack of independent sources, which is why my preference has been for this [21] version; more for the references than the prose. I'm not actually sure that User:Hrafn is particularly tied to the single-source version, as I noticed he has again removed the Daniel Greenberg page and merged it to Daniel_Greenberg#Daniel_A._Greenberg, but with 3 references instead of 1. (isn't remerging the article in question after a reference to WP:ANI bad form?}? So what's the process here then ...? Nfitz (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I missed your earlier response/question regarding Daniel Greenberg. I must have missed it in the traffic, if you know what I mean...

As far as process, it appears that the article was put up at the appropriate discussion forums, and that redirected the debate about ""Keep"" or ""Merge"" to the article talk page. That's what I read, and I put my two cents in.

User:Hrafn merged the Greenberg stub into the Sudbury school article. I myself am not willing to undo this action, for several reasons. 1) The Greenberg article can be recreated in an expanded version, where it would likely survive on its own merits. 2) the merger does not detract from the Sudbury school article, rather, the addition of material (IMO) enhances it quite nicely. 3) Proper process appears to me to have been observed. If anything, my attention was drawn to the debate after the merger had been affected. I am not aware of any "breach of protocol," as it were, to warrant an action that appears to have been made in good faith, and with the best of intentions.

If you feel I am missing something in my reply, please let me know. There are many little corners of WP that I am only passingly familiar with, and I am usually pleased when someone pushes me into an unknown direction. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Sudbury Valley School and Sudbury school

I have proposed the merging of Sudbury Valley School into Sudbury school. If you would like to vote on the merger, please visit Talk:Sudbury school#Merger Two. PYRRHON talk 19:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuya Suzuki (born 1988)

You have mixed up this player with the one born in 1982 (who has played in the J League, AFC Champions League, etc). Sorry, but there is no evidence that the Suzuki born in 1988 passes WP:ATHLETE, so I'll take it to AfD.

I wasn't aware that Takayuki Toyomitsu had played in the Emperor's Cup (I can't verify it either), so if you have a reference, that would be very helpful.

Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the follow up. I did find a reference which confirms that the Suzuki born in 1988 did play one ACL match in 2007 (and I've added it to the article). I am hoping someone can produce confirmation that Toyomitsu has played in the Emperor's Cup. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ting Tings

There is no need to recreate the individual member articles because info was deleted from the main page. The result of the merge discussion still stands. If you disagree with removal of information from the band article then add it back there, but do not recreate member articles as they still fail WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montréal Métro

I noticed your edits to the article for the Montréal Métro system. The most recent complete data available from APTA does indeed appear to show average weekday ridership of 987,000 (as opposed to the previously listed 989,000 figure, which I presume was an error). It looks like the STM data on their website itself is woefully out of date, since the 700,000 daily ridership figure appears to date back before 2004. The most recent APTA ridership report appears to indicate daily ridership exceeded 1,000,000 in October 2009, but because they appear to have not received data for December 2009, they did not calculate a precise average daily ridership for the STM (although it is in the report that you removed, on page 34, below the AMT figures). I've restored the most recent relevant report as a citation (instead of the later, but incomplete report), and I also restored the other cite that referenced comparable rankings in North America. Feel free to discuss on the article talk page if you have any questions regarding my changes. jæs (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Michael McCollum

I have nominated Michael McCollum, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael McCollum. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Odie5533 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nfitz. You have new messages at Odie5533's talk page.
Message added 17:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nfitz. You have new messages at Alzarian16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:NFCC, File:Csa logo.png and Canada men's national soccer team

WP:NFCC #10c requires a separate, specific rationale for every use of a non-free item. That rationale does not exist for the use you are attempting. I understand, based on your edit summary, you don't appreciate the logo being removed and feel I should be providing the rationale rather than removing it. However, this stance has never held up in any debate. Further, as it notes on the policy, it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale. I'm sorry you apparently disagree with the policy, but that does not change policy. If you wish to restore this logo to that article, please provide a valid rationale for the use. Some instructions on how to do so are available at WP:FURG. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the logo from the article again, as there is still no rationale for the use of the logo for that article. WP:NFCC is explicit and clear. Further, you are now engaged in an edit war. I will note that WP:3RR makes a specific exemption for NFCC compliance edits. I strongly encourage you to cease your restoration of the logo unless you provide a rationale for its use on that article. If you persist in violating WP:NFCC policy, you may be blocked. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherburn White Rose F.C.

For info, I didn't notify any editors of the PROD because only two non-IPs have edited the page more than once, of which one was only active for 11 minutes nine months ago and the other for one afternoon over two years ago, so I figured there was very little point notifying them as they would not be around to see it anyway....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

newco rangers

although it shouldnt be there ther eis no conesnese to move it back to one article it is at request for comment so when that comes out later this week reply to it, if you do a bold thing liek that again i will have to leavea warnign even though i agree it should be one article--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is not a clear consensus it 50/50 on both sides, does nto matter if there celtic supporter they haveright to edit wikipedia if you feel it wrong make a complaint on the administrator noticeboard--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, your comment was incredibly biased and non-factual - assuming that editors you are in conflict with support a rival team. I always do AGF - but only when you do - and I've not been uncivil anywhere. Giant Snowman 18:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made the assumption that they were ALL Celtic supporters - not one - and given the history between the two clubs/fans, you were making some unsavoury comments. But you DID forumshop - if you had simply had notifed WP:FOOTY of the AN discussion, that would have been fair - but instead you simultaneously started the exact same discussion at two locations. Giant Snowman 19:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, notifying is fine - but starting identical discussions at the same time is not. Yes I should have AGF more - apologies for that - but I haven't been uncivil. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please ensure that edit summaries are accurate. This recent summary includes implications that are clearly incorrect. As I demonstrated to you on my talk page, these articles were de-linked almost 6 months ago,[22] which is also about 6 months before the AfDs and therefore very obviously not because of the AfDs. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you have a lot of gall, given you removed the West Wing discussion from your Talk Page with the edit summary "Archiving crap". Perhaps if your going to make unnecessary comments on people's talk pages, you should hold yourself to the same standard? Nfitz (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chohung Bank FC

With reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chohung Bank FC I have now re-written:

I also make reference in my comments to the status of the Korean National Football Championship, predecessor to the current FA Cup, with reference to the Korean Football Association website. It is a shame that this page which lists the National Football Championship winners and runners-up is not in English.

조흥은행 = Chohung Bank FC
제일모직 = Cheil Industries FC

League Octopus (League Octopus 06:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Be Warned - Rangers FC - an attempt to push through a controversial 'same club' approach

Hello. You have contributed to the Newco Rangers article so I thought yuou should be made aware that an attempt is being made to undermine this article by pushing through a 'same club' approach despite many of us believing this is heavily biased and very selective use of the sources. You may wish to follow what is proposed at the Talk:Rangers F.C/Sandbox. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Infrastructure Ontario

Hello Nfitz,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Infrastructure Ontario for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, ♥ Tentinator ♥ 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Football prods

If you mean my PROD of Quillan Roberts, please say so explicitly. If you hide your principal concern from me, discussion is unlikely to yield any useful outcome. Regarding your concerns about this article, I refer you to my nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quillan Roberts. With regards to listing, the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves is basically redundant since the advent of article alerts through which all articles PROD'ed articles within the scope of the project are automatically listed at the WP:FOOTY main page. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your assertion that any PROD which does not result in deletion is automatically inappropriate. Let's keep going with your November example. Of the eleven PROD's that didn't result in deletion, six were BLPPROD's in which in your argument about the necessity of debate is not applicable, and one was an honest mistake in which I accidentally PROD'ed that I had no intention PROD'ing, a mistake that I corrected myself. That leaves four articles in which you might argue that I misjudged controversy. If you take issue to that systematically, you'll quickly find that you'll have a problem with entire WP:FOOTY. You accuse me of not assuming good faith in my first response, and I'll admit there is a grain of truth to that, but I'd ask that you hold yourself to the same standard. If my deprod rate seems unusually high, try and figure out why that might be, rather than basing an accusation of inappropriate behaviour on unfiltered numbers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Aivaras Bražinskas. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN

I notice that you keep referring to this in AfD debates. Please be aware that this is not a guideline, but an old essay that was not successful in being promoted to policy/guideline. The actual guideline is WP:NFOOTY, which states that a player must have played in a fully-professional league. Cheers, Number 5 7 23:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have noticed that you believe the Conference Premier is "mostly professional". That was perhaps the case in the past, but currently it is a roughly 50/50 split. Number 5 7 23:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the links on the WP:FOOTY main page to be clearer about what the guidelines are. Number 5 7 18:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

You have undoubtedly noticed that I have not responded to your most recent comments to my talk page. This is largely because I felt I could not adequately respond without letting my emotions get the better of me. Yet I feel compelled to respond your most recent comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaquille McDonald‎. I am posting this here since what I have to say is not relevant to the article in question. In this comment, you refer to my actions, and those of other editors who share my opinions and editing patterns as arsing, a waste time, idiotic, destructive and as WikiFail. Civility being one of the five pillars Wikipedia, I respectfully submit that if you cannot make a comment calmly, you should not be making it at all. Best Regards. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nfitz. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

China League One

I would suggest you start a proper discussion at WT:FPL, and not individual AFD pages, as it is likely to receive wide attention/input there. Giant Snowman 12:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FPL has more watchers than you might think, and you could always post a notice at WT:FOOTY asking for wider input. Giant Snowman 09:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry United

Level 12 has never been the cut-off point for notability, it has always been level 10, the level at which teams are eligible to enter the FA Cup..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nfitz. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Joseph Toby

FYI - I included some articles on Toby's background on Talk:Joseph Toby. Once he plays a first team game - remind me on my talk page and I'll restore the article so you don't have to go to DRV. --Trödel 03:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Toby would probably pass muster with those references, but it is better not to fight the battle because there are some players that "make" the first team but don't see any minutes. I'll also try to remember to include him once the season starts. --Trödel 17:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I restored the references to the talk page in case you want them. --Trödel 19:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Awudu Ibrahim for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Awudu Ibrahim is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awudu Ibrahim until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Giant Snowman 11:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

FYI, you might wish to consider archiving your talk page, it's rather long and hard to navigate. Giant Snowman 11:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha thanks

Sorry I never noticed the links to other wikipedias on the side bar, so thanks for pointing that out. Wgolf (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Taar

Just so you know, I'll be sending Albert Taar to AfD because he's not notable at all. JMHamo (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Pascenco

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source so I was well within my rights to remove it, and as that left the article unreferenced I was well within my rights to add a BLPPROD. Thank you for finding a basic reference. Giant Snowman 20:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not my opinion that Transfermarkt is not reliable, it is community consensus following a number of discussions at WP:RSN, see also {{Transfermarkt}} which has been deleted as a consequence. As for my PRODs, I obviously added without realising the Moldovan league was FPL, see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Antoniuc. Giant Snowman 09:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simple time constraints, which I seem to be having too many of these days. Now since removed by another user, no harm done. Giant Snowman 09:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Giannitsis

Old page history restored. Der yck C. 14:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Laursen

Article restored. I've made a procedural nomination for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Laursen as well. -- KTC (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nfitz. You have new messages at LFaraone's talk page.
Message added 15:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

L Faraone 15:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nfitz. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

PROD removals

Your PROD removals seem to be becoming increasingly disruptive; while removing PRODs from articles is normally fine, I would appreciate if you didn't a) remove PRODs from articles that you know are non-notable (given the VAST number subsequently deleted at AFD) and b) used better rationale than simply "no", as you have done here and here and here and here and here and here - at least provide a solid rationale. Your PROD removals seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Giant Snowman 19:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the lengthy discussion at my talk page (now archived) had got through to you about your PROD removals. Glen Kamara shows clearly not. Once that AFD is closed I will be raising the matter at ANI (seeking a topic ban from removing PRODs) as it is clear that you simply do not know enough about notability to continue editing in that area. Giant Snowman 17:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BMO Field, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN notification

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Giant Snowman 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your help in allowing more discussion to be had before deletion of articles. While I do not necessarily agree with all your PROD removals, better to remove one too many PRODs than one too few. cyclopia ^speak! 08:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey City Soccer

Sorry about restoring the Prod... was unfamiliar, and should have researched the correct protocol before I did it. Just went back to the page to revert my own change, but you had already taken care of it. Will take it to AfD.Onel5969 (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Soccer Players

Hi. I noticed your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armin Hodžić (2nd nomination). Please let me know if you decide to seek a change to WP:NSOCCER; I'm certainly in favour of a slight relaxation of our criteria (though it would have to be phrased very carefully to avoid a cascade of non-notables). Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Hassan (footballer, born 1990)

While I appreciate the notice, I didn't actually PROD this article. I've taken the liberty of copying your message to User:Fenix down's talk page, who did. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eglinton Crosstown stations

I have redlinked all of the proposed LRT stations in the Eglinton Crosstown line article. If you have enough information, be bold and create the articles. If you don't know anything about them, why did you bring up the subject of including them in the TTC station template. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nfitz. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 00:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm Vanjagenije. I noticed that you removed a Biographies of Living Persons PROD, from Vadim Istrati, and I wanted to let you know that I have replaced it. Please don't remove these Biographies of Living Persons PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source or were created before 18 March 2010. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider adding reliable sources to the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nfitz. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
Message added 15:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Vanjagenije (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Stefan Buck. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

We've been through this before - WP:BLP and WP:V apply no matter how much you don't like it. See also WP:NOTVAND. Giant Snowman 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we haven't been through this before, even though your edit summary links to a past discussion? Your logic is impeccable </sarcasm> Oh, and what accusations am I "throwing around"? You're the one (falsely) accusing me of vandalism. And don't worry, I'm not going to be blocked anytime soon. Giant Snowman 16:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You not being involved in that discussion is irrelevant, when you are aware of it - and the outcome of that and other discussions was that my edits are fully in line with policy. Look at this - you will see comments from admins/BLP experts that "Anyone should have the freedom to remove unsourced information from any article, much more so a BLP, whether it is positive or negative" and "Unreferenced material can and should be deleted" and "Unreferenced material does not conform to one of the most basic policies, WP:V. Removal of such material is justified, particularly on BLPs"...need I go on? My edits are fully in line with policy and are not vandalism - you adding unreferenced material to BLPs, on the other hand, is extremely damaging to Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 16:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You edits might well be in full line with policy. But that doesn't mean that they are damaging. You chased away yet another perfect good editor from the project. How many is that now? Perhaps we'd have been better off with all the ones you chase away, rater than someone who'd much prefer to delete text, rather than simply trying to improve and add references. Enough of this. Please stay off my Talk page. 16:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well at least you now admit my edits are in-line with policy! Are you therefore going to retract your silly accusations of vandalism? Oh and I've not chased anyone away, stop being so bloody melodramatic. Giant Snowman 17:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Victoria Highlanders season

I have relisted the articles in smaller bundles if you want to join the disccussion. Kingjeff (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nfitz. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Dean Santangelo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dean Santangelo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Santangelo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Pee Jay 11:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galt F.C. that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't realise the references were new. Sorry, I'm just so shocked that our you just tried to AFD our nation's only Olympic gold-medal winning team. We should be trying to add other significant teams of the era, such as Toronto Ulster United who won the National Soccer League (Canada) many times, most of which aren't even listed. Nfitz (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY

Hi Nfitz. Just thinking about Kyaw Zin Lwin. Would this be enough? Or I must find sources of him actually playing in the match against another professional team? Optakeover ^(Talk) 15:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

My thanks for your reply. You sounded very jaded, but now seem refreshed and back on form. I'll state my six cents, because you have looked at the clouds from both sides, jaded and positive, and will therefore be knowledgeable but objective.

In 8 years I have only begun 3 articles: on 3 living female journalist/broadcasters. One was English, one from Africa, one from Asia. They all work for the station to whom Jimbo Wales gave an hour-long interview: Al Jazeera. Yes, it's 'Marmite', but if Jimbo likes it, I don't feel I have to apologise too much here... The names were: Nazanine Moshiri, Jane Dutton and Divya Gopalan. All 3 got about 30 hits a day for the first month afterwards, which indicated interest and notability in all 3. I went off-line for a while and when I came back I saw the one with the Iranian name - the Englishwoman - had been deleted without any public enquiry. It was stated there were no references. Despite having been around for c.2 months and seen by (c.30 x 30 x 2) people, I was the only 'reader' notified. Why? It's not about me, it's about the encyclopaedia. If notification had been put on the AJ.English page, presumably readers could have put some in. So that's why it was not. A reviewer looked and saw there was no reference and authorised the deletion. Again, no consideration of view-count and whether references could have been put in. The implication, is that in the space of two weeks, I used the same techniques, often the same sources, to set up the three entries, and that I did remember to put references in for 2/3 of the entries, but entirely omitted to do so for 1/3. It also means that for c.6 weeks, nobody saw any absence of references. Because there wasn't one. Yet. However, on one of the other articles, I noticed an editor trying to scratch the references there. I recorded it at the time (pre-Moshiri absence-of-references). I believe that editor is now banned (surprise), but it is not the individual that is flawed, rather the system. I don't think the deletors were the same people for the 3 different articles. I also believe the reviewers are useless as guardians of notability, but were acting in AGF. The system is as good as its weakest link, and several have noted that the 'no-reference' scam enables people, or entities (no names, but they are well-known for 'correcting bias', whether biased or not...) to scratch articles they don't like without putting them to public vote. Nice. Discreet.

So that's why I keep Moshiri on my talk-page, contrary to a general 'tidy-desk' policy, which I realise WP doesn't really like, but I didn't realise that when I started. Also, when I checked up, I noted the links between some users and their 'mates': one would act and another would intervene as an 'honest-broker'. Furthermore, when I started the articles, I thought it disturbing to see this exchange come up: 'can you please delete this lady?' 'shouldn't be a problem, as we've already done it to 2 of her colleagues a couple of weeks ago'. No discussion of why, by either side. That and the later deletion of references on the articles that still exist (and are therefore verifiable), and then the speedy elimination of a very good journalist seems commendablu underhand. Long after the article had appeared: 4-6 weeks is a long time on WP, when 1 article got a deletion tag within 5 mins.! To protest the issue requires me to immerse myself in the WP online community and bureaucracy, for which I have neither the time, nor frankly, the inclination. But I do feel the need to put the incident on record. What would I wish from you? Nothing, other than to note this, along with your own observations. What is undone, is done: it is not the single article, but the wider implication. That is far more of an issue.

So now you've learned not to feed your trolls: sorry 'bout that, but if it's any consolation, I feel a little better at least! Protozoon (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kurt Phyll for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kurt Phyll is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Phyll until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Giant Snowman 09:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice personal attack

If you would bother to look, I nominate many articles for deletion, all for the same reason. Here are the non-football articles I nominated this year alone.

If they fail WP:GNG, they will be nominated. I play no favourites. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

Mesfer Al-Qahtani

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dmitri Gudey and Arseni Zakharov

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

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

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

MfD nomination of User:Nfitz/Wagner Santos Lago 2011

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

Edit summary

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

ANI

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

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

Thanks + invitation

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

Sergio D'Autilia

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

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

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

Plymouth United F.C.

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

Talk:Toronto_rapid_transit#Requested_move_25_August_2016

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Moves of SvG sport articles from Draft to mainspace

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

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

Johnpacklambert ANI

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

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

Please....

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

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

WP:BITE?

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

People have your number. I think User:Furry-friend described it best at [23]. You did however, also request that I not post in the thread above. And I will accede to your request. I know you've got a long history of not being WP:CIVIL - how you get away with it I don't know given the pillar of WP:5P4 - but I hope that you can come to love yourself enough to one day be civil to your peers here. I wish you good luck in why we are here - improving the encyclopedia. Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The section above

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

ANI

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

If I may, I'd like to make an observation/request: Posts such as yours here [24] are unhelpful IMO in several ways: (1) The non-permalink RFPP link goes dead within a few minutes of the protection being done. (2) You could have closed the thread, with a clear and detailed explanation (what kind of protection, for how long, who made it), when you made that observation. (3) Not closing it forces someone else to figure out what has actually happened. (4) Since the non-permalink RFPP thread is a dead link and the article itself is not even linked in the ANI thread, the closer must copy+paste the article name to search for it, go into the article's history, and see what kind of protection was placed and for how long. My request would be: If you are going to post the apparent resolution to a thread, do so more thoroughly, precisely, and completely. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Impressive

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

Michael Cole

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

Mozambique non-existent stadiums

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

Tubuia

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Language competancy

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

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

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

July 2017

Your comments at Talk pages

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

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

Block for Disruptive Editing (withdrawn)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unblock Request

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

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

Request reason:

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

Accept reason:

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

Commentary after Block was Lifted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2017

Edit to Stephen Miller (political advisor) and complaint to WP:ANI

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

Shouldn't most edits be by people with no history at a page? How is that even an issue. How is The Economist poorly-sourced. And Fox news undoubtedly RS - that seems very unlikely - have you even seen the stuff they have on that channel? They even support an undoubtedly bigoted misogynist like Donald Trump, and fail to mention either that POS is a bigot and a misogynist. How does that meet RS? Nfitz (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Noticed you took this to ANI. Surely discussing this on Talk would be more appropriate, given there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to discuss these edits there. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you blanked the discussion with comment "odd", rather than addressing questions. How is it an issue that an editor at Stephen Miller (political advisor) is uninvolved? How is The Economist reference poorly-sourced? And how can anyone possibly claim that Fox News is undoubtedly RS given they are fringe media, involved in numerous bizarre conspiracy theories, and don't seem to meet criteria laid out at WP:RS? Nfitz (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

public figure

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

? (checks edit summaries). Wait, you mean referring to WP:CENSORED as a " WP:CENSORED "? He has frequently been discussed in those terms in the main-stream media. These are - simply facts. A quick "WP:CENSORED "+" WP:CENSORED "&lr=&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=nws google news search gets 92 hits for that as a phrase together - and presumably a lot more if I searched separately - much of it from main-stream newspapers. BTW, I'd appreciate it if you didn't refer to me as "dude" - I don't think I've ever indicated my gender or preferred pronoun - but it certainly isn't dude!. Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but these are mostly op-ed pieces so these characterizations should be avoided and not made in Wikipedia voice without attribution. I'm gonna tell you right now too that if you keep doing it you will be blocked and you will make it easier for WP:CENSORED's supporters to attack you. Don't give'em an excuse.

Sorry about the dude thing. It's more of an expression of excitement rather than a personal address. Like, you know, if there's a big thunder storm and you say "dude!" - you're not actually attributing gender to the thunder clap, just saying "whoa!". But I'll avoid it in the future, no problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big thunder storm, and you say dude? And you wonder (sorry, y'all wonder) why I make jokes about American use of English. If there's any WP:CENSORED supporters around here, surely they should be banned, given his extreme " WP:CENSORED " - only a WP:CENSORED supports a WP:CENSORED. There's no doubt about WP:CENSORED's WP:CENSORED, with his WP:CENSORED ban (as if the other 50 or so comments in the last year weren't enough, but this is the only recent bright-line I can think of - though the extreme WP:CENSORED he displayed in the 1970s with his stopping WP:CENSORED from WP:CENSORED s in his building should have been enough). Besides, all the word seems to mean in an American context is "intolerant toward those holding different opinions". I don't think even a white WP:CENSORED would disagree with that description! Ironically, in an American context, anyone who opposes white WP:CENSORED is a WP:CENSORED ... And WP:CENSORED .. even the right-wing media use this word freely such as WP:CENSORED and WP:CENSORED. Now, if I'd used the word "WP:CENSORED" in an edit summary, you might have a valid point! Nfitz (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not how this works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree, but I'm not particularly good at not being blunt, and tolerating extremism - which is why generally I avoid editing in the topic of that particular nation's politics. Only found myself there, wondering who this person was, when I noticed that something odd was afoot in the recent edits, when quickly trying to fix a recently-broken reference. Nfitz (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language

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

Thanks for dropping in. Not sure what political views has to do with a demagogue like WP:CENSORED . He's always seems apolitical - the guy is (or was) a life-long Democrat after all. Sometimes we elect (for lack of a better word, let's call it a "microwave" - which presumably even the American's have yet to turn into some ethnic epithet yet). If one is so utterly blinded by one's political allegiances to the point that one can't acknowledge that a "microwave" is a "microwave", one shouldn't be editing here. We've seen time and time again, where a leader appears who is so WP:CENSORED , that their party is all but wiped out, or greatly reduced in standing. WP:CENSORED or WP:CENSORED in Canada; I dare say in the UK; and presumably other examples in other democracies if I could be bothered to look them up. I fail to understand why Americans seem to not only stay on the WP:CENSORED, but actually flock to it. And I really don't think we should coddle or WP:CENSORED to those with such a lack of perspective - I don't think it's healthy in the long-term for the project, or society in general. I have no idea how the USA got to the point, where it became okay to not only express such extreme WP:CENSORED and WP:CENSORED publicly, but actually still be electable after doing it. And perhaps it's because there's some belief, that one must not reply to it, in the same terms - which is toning up several notches, not toning down. Personally, I think that if there is someone on the project, who is so WP:CENSORED and utterly out-of-step with society, morality, and normality, that they think it's okay to support WP:CENSORED to suggest that WP:CENSORED or WP:CENSORED folk can't WP:CENSORED - quite frankly, they should be WP:CENSORED - and WP:CENSORED as a whole, so that they WP:CENSORED . And I don't see that as political - I'd hope that attitude would be universal to right and left - for such WP:CENSORED is not just the domain is the extreme right, but also the extreme left (which is a group we've seen much of in English-speaking countries in a few decades, but does exist elsewhere in North America). Nfitz (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 Day Block for BLP violation - August 8

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

You can't just label living persons "sexual predators" on this project. Given the fact that you did so after two admins already stated that a block was appropriate for your behavior at ANI, I think this block is exceptionally lenient. Swarm ♠ 05:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And no, the claim that your label, which was at best contentious, at worst defamatory, is "common knowledge", does not make it okay. Swarm ♠ 06:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And see my comment at WP:ANI for extended rationale, as the link was cut off in the block log.[25] Swarm ♠ 06:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, as your comments deal with a highly politicized topic, I will preempt any suggestion that this has anything to do with me disagreeing with your stated opinions: I very well may agree with everything you said, and I may well take your side on another forum. But I would never be at liberty to express such opinions on this project, nor would I ever, nor have I ever. Nor were you ever at liberty to do so. This is quite simply not a matter of whether or not your opinions are shared by myself, or even the vast majority of people around the world. Your comments are quite simply not acceptable on this forum. Adherence to BLP is a very serious thing and there is little tolerance for violations, and most users would not have been given the slack you were to make these comments in the first place. You were provided with more than enough leniency to make more inappropriate comments than was ever tolerable. Escalating your shockingly-flagrant BLP violations after the warning of an imminent block, with outright accusations of criminality, against more than one subject protected by BLP, is something that cannot be ignored. Swarm ♠ 06:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Really User:Swarm? In what way is the comment about Bill Clinton either not NPOV, verifiable, nor Original Research? He was stripped of his licence to practice law in relation to the lies he told, after being sued by one of his victims? I have to say, of the comments I made that I thought might lead to an Administrator blocking me - this one wasn't even on the list! Particularly as I simply had only repeated the comment made by James J. Lambden, who received no sanction, and provided evidence [26] [27] [28]. I do owe James J. Lambden an apology though (and probably User:Hidden Tempo as well) - he is clearly correct, and there does appear to be two standards here - in fact, he over estimated what one has to say about a Democract to get blocked, given my comment was neither made repeatedly, nor with any intent to offend. Clinton was quite rightfully impeached for his crimes - can you tell me how me simply noting them is poorly sourced, sensationalist, the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, or raises the possibility of harm to living subjects? Also, can you clarify who the two admins were? Both User:Drmies and User:Objective3000 seemed more concerned that an over 2000-year-old phrase about a shovel became racist after spade allegedly became an ethnic slur in some banana republic (why, is it because they are discriminated against with poor jobs, and you see them shovelling along the road?) - which is surely in violation of WP:SPADE. (BTW, Objective3000 - etymology fascinates me. I did search carefully for a definition of spade in the online OED (3rd edition, updated to 2017 at [www.oed.com]) for this, and cannot find this entry - what were you looking in? Do you have the entry number? I'm looking at entries 185449 through 185455, which provide 4 entries as noun, and 2 as a verb - but the newest entry dates to the 1600s (which is an obsolete probable spayed, meaning eunach); we are dealing with the Noun1 entry 185449 here, which dates to AD 725 in (Old) English - though presumably much further back to PIE; entry 185449 includes to call a spade a spade which dates to 178 BC, and to call a spade a (bloody) shovel which dates to 1919.). Overall, I am concerned that BLP is being used for things it wasn't designed for; the concern was the publication of unverifiable material about living individuals; not repeating well documented verifiable information - or even allowing the project to eliminate Fair comment of public persons on talk pages. And in particular it does seem to being used by centrist and right-wing Americans who support the Democrats to beat down extreme right-wing Americans who support Republicans.Nfitz (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request for Block Clarification - August 8

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

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

Request reason:

I'm not asking for an unblock (yet at least), but I'd tried to ask User:Swarm some questions to understand the reason he blocked me - but I've realized they are a very occasional editor, and looking at their edit history may well not appear before the block is long over. As WP:GAB doesn't address this, I'm sorry to use the unblock template this way - but don't see the alternative. User:Swarm took exception to my edit [[29]]. In particular, I don't understand his comment above ... with outright accusations of criminality, against more than one subject protected by BLP, .... I'm not aware of making ANY accusations of criminality yesterday or in the preceding fortnight (or heck years) against any living persons - let alone multiple people. As this seems to be central to the block, I need someone to explain to me what accusation of criminality I've made - as that certainly wasn't my intent! Nfitz (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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

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

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

Sexual predation is a crime? Since when? I just searched our criminal code[30], and the word "predator" or "predation" doesn't appear; UK criminal law is a bit tougher to search, but this seems to mostly about foxes, fish, and businesses ... a more specific search doesn't yield any law or regulations, just references in various documents that don't speak to the criminality of a sexual predator. I think you may be confusing the term with "sexual offender". My gosh, if sexual predator was a crime, they'd have to lock up every cougar or male teenager in the nation! That has to be one of the oddest comments I've seen. Looking in the OED, I also don't see any reference to "sexual predator", and word "predator" hasn't got criminal overtones. There's absolutely nothing criminal about being a sexual predator - certainly not in the English language. I really think you (User:Drmies) have the wrong end of the stick here. I'd have never have used the word "sexual offender", and there's nothing in "sexual predator" that implies any criminality, or as far as I can tell, violates BLP, given how well sourced the predatory nature of such individuals are! Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 Day Block for BLP violation and Revocation of Talk Page Access - August 9

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

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

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

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

First Unblock Request (UTRS) - August 9

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

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

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

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Unblock Form

Why do you believe you should be unblocked?
There's never been any BLP violation edits by me in Mainspace, or Mainspace talk. There's no danger to the project itself. This is merely a dispute about exactly what is a BLP violation. (which could have been dealt with better by all parties) After some confusion, the reason for the block appears to simply be "no contentious or negative labels of any kind are permitted to be applied to any living person, as a matter of strict policy". Reviewing the BLP policy (WP:PUBLICFIGURE), I should have said "REDACTED was alleged to have been a REDACTED", rather than "REDACTED is a REDACTED" and "Many prominent people have called REDACTED a REDACTED of REDACTED" rather than "REDACTEDis a REDACTED of REDACTED". (sure would have been nice if someone had simply pointed this out calmy in the first place rather than all the drama). I would assume that given REDACTED prominently admitted years ago he was a REDACTED (long before Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording), and this has been very well documented, that the word alleged is not necessary. (for example see [31]. Though I'm willing to take guidance on this detail. I'm a little dubious about the block extension and talk page rights removal, I think for this edit as all the comments about him being a REDACTED were either quotes from respectable public figures, newspaper headlines, or imbedded in the URLs Though now that User:Swarm has clearly defined the reason for the block, I can at least see the point - and once unblocked, there is no reason for me to be quoting such documents. Though to be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that quoting major public figures, and mainstream newspaper headlines, should be a BLP violation, if it's clear that's what they are. But I'm willing to not do that, if the consensus IS in that direction.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?
The same ones I've been editing for years. Generally local stuff Canadian stuff, and football (real football not the North American variety). Of course, I'll fix any error when I see it - in this case, I had merely tried to fix a broken reference, and stumbled into some bizarre and highly toxic WP:BATTLEGROUND the likes of which I've never seen before. (I seldom touch foreign politics) Current (but moving slowly) projects include trying to rehabilitate the Nauru national soccer team article (currently in my sandbox - and it may not be rehabilitatable, but does require some tough research - I was about to ask if someone could give my library access to assist in that - but I just realised, that's it's really easy to request it online ... no reason I can't work on that project wh I've been touching (and occasionally very much expanding and rewriting) BLP articles for over a decade, without any complaints of BLP violations (except of perhaps the most technical nature ... i.e. lack of sourcing for mundane stuff, that is quickly fixed).

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.
I was blocked for noting in WP:ANI that surely it was common knowledge that REDACTED (and REDACTED) were REDACTED, among many other but dead REDACTED. diff. This was in response to an earlier comment by another user, who felt there was a double standard, noting that if they had said "REDACTED is a REDACTED" (providing 3 references supporting that statement). diff. (ironically, I seem to have proven him right - but that's another issue). The exact issue of how this is a BLP violation has been a bit of a moving target, with unfortunately some admins saying one thing, however the blocking admin User:Swarm has clarified the reason for the block is simply because under no circumstance " no contentious or negative labels of any

(ran out of space)

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?
A much bigger issue here, that no one has touched, is that I managed to ten times in about 36 hours refer to REDACTED as an expletive without getting blocked. However, a single occasion agreeing with someone else that REDACTED was a REDACTED (which in my mind is far more verifiable and well documented - heck the person I agreed with provided references), got a block and universal condemnation in about 90 minutes. It's very apparent that making a borderline comment about a well loved United States Democrat is treated very, very differently to a well loved United States Republican. I was quite surprised by the difference. And I must reluctantly conclude that there's a huge WP:BIAS problem here in Wikipedia - something I've been denying previously. And for all the fuss and drama about this whole tempest in a teapot - the bias is a much more serious real issue. If these are indeed both WP:BLP violations, then the reaction to making vulgar comments about an populist right wing leader with little support from the general demographic that can be found at Wikipedia should be larger than simply pointing out the well documented flaws of a much loved by the (REDACTED at least) demographic that tends be attracted to this type of project. Which I suppose, ironically, means I'm actually saying that I should have been blocked much, much, earlier (though someone calmly pointing to WP:PUBLICFIGURE and saying read the second example would have ended this nightmare a long time ago - good grief, it's not like one can memorize all rules - which do appear to change from time to time. ). Quite frankly, I have no idea how to address this issue. I'm far too blunt to front anything. (I'm having some issues completing the boxes above. I've not been able to complete two of them, and then they seem to stop working). Thanks for your time, sorry if this is a bit verbose.

UTRS Email Response - August 9

Hello nfitz,

This unblock request serves to convince me not only that unblocking you would not be in the best interests of the project, but that the original block was actually far too lenient. It appears that you fundamentally misunderstand WP:BLP, and to that end, I have changed the block settings on your account - you are now blocked indefinitely, and will remain so until you can adequately demonstrate a sufficient understanding of WP:BLP.

Yunshui
English Wikipedia Administrator

Indefinite Block for Fundamentally Not Comprehending BLP Policy as Evidenced By Bragging

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

Email from Nfitz to Indefinite Blocking Admin

This was sent shortly after the unblock request, but lead to the admin removing his talk page block before the block unrequest below was considered Nfitz (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering my unblock request.

Sorry to email you about this - I'm not quite sure how the procedure works. I submitted a second unblock request, but I don't know if it goes to you automatically, or get's routed to someone not yet involved.

Basically it says I was not boasting. (it's not in my nature - I don't think anyone has ever even accused me of that before). I expressed my final comments about getting away with so many insults of a █████████, compared to merely agreeing to one about a ████████, not as a boast, but because having only just realized the implications of [[WP:Public Figure]] that it suddenly dawned on me that perhaps some of the bias I've heard some on the right-wing make about Wikipedia being systemically biased to the Left, may actually be true. (though I've never claimed to understand foreign politics ... I don't even see how one thinks that either ███████ or █████ are actually ████ ████, given how ████████████ their ███████ are! Which is a good reason, I generally avoid the area (all I was trying to do was fix a broken reference ... sigh)

Sigh, it's almost as if someone like me who actually takes the process seriously, and makes sure they ask questions about the issue to understand it properly, so they CAN contribute constructively in the future, have a tougher time in this process than those who simply haven't gotten it, and say whatever needs to be said, to slip off the hook. Which is pretty clear from my edit and block history - that I simply don't do. I'd sooner hang, than admit to something I didn't do.

But I did actually do it here, and I've understood it, admitted it, and it's pretty clear from my edit history that I won't deliberately repeat it. As such, I don't see why the block should not now be lifted. And until that point, I don't see why talk page access shouldn't be restored, given that I now understand what was objectionable about my content.

Email from Indefinate Blocking Admin Restoring Talk Page Access

I'm unwilling to lift this particular block based on a personal email, due to the number of other administrators involved. However, I have reinstated your access to edit your user talkpage, so that you can make another appeal there for an independant administrator to review. You've done this before and so I assume you know the format, but just in case you need them, the instructions can be found at WP:GAB

Sincerely,
Yunshui

Email From Nfitz to Original Blocking Admin Restoring Talk Page Access

Simultaneously, I had asked Swarm to at least restore talk page access ... Nfitz (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you see as part of this process.

Do you see my unblock requests? (no, I was not boasting ... but that's another department ...)

Sigh, it's almost as if someone like me who actually takes the process seriously, and makes sure they ask questions about the issue to understand it properly, so they CAN contribute constructively in the future, have a tougher time in this process than those who simply haven't gotten it, and say whatever needs to be said, to slip off the hook. Which is pretty clear from my edit and block history - that I simply don't do. I'd sooner hang, than admit to something I didn't do.

But I did actually do it here, and I've understood it, admitted it, and it's pretty clear from my edit history that I won't deliberately repeat it. As such, can you at least talk page access shouldn't be restored, given that I now understand what was objectionable about my content.

(though I think that we also meet the criteria of lifting the block altogether - but with the "boasting" wrinkle, I wouldn't think that is your call ...)

(though if you can't see my unblock requests, then the context isn't here - I can pass you my text if that helps)

No response was received by email. Lesson learned - simpler to not approach from different angles simultaneously - doesn't really save any time.Nfitz (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Unblock Request (UTRS) - August 9

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

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

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

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

Second UTRS Unblock Form

Why do you believe you should be unblocked?
I understand the piece of WP:BLP that I had previously failed to appreciate. (WP:PUBLICFIGURE) There's never been any BLP violation edits by me in Mainspace, or Mainspace talk. There's no danger to the project itself. This is about user talk space comments. As previously noted, I will follow the guideline.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?
The same ones I've been editing for years. Generally local stuff Canadian stuff, and football (real football not the North American variety). Of course, I'll fix any error when I see it - in this case, I had merely tried to fix a broken reference, and stumbled into some bizarre and highly toxic WP:BATTLEGROUND the likes of which I've never seen before. (I seldom touch foreign politics) Current (but moving slowly) projects include trying to rehabilitate the Nauru national soccer team article (currently in my sandbox - and it may not be rehabilitatable, but does require some tough research - I was about to ask if someone could give my library access to assist in that - but I just realised, that's it's really easy to request it online ... no reason I can't work on that project wh I've been touching (and occasionally very much expanding and rewriting) BLP articles for over a decade, without any complaints of BLP violations (except of perhaps the most technical nature ... i.e. lack of sourcing for mundane stuff, that is quickly fixed).

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.
My previous failure to appreciate the implications of WP:PUBLICFIGURE As I've now realized the implication, there is no risk of repetition - I think I've shown that in a dozen years of avoiding BLP issues.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?
In an earlier unblock request User:Yunshi said that The fact that your unblock request actively boasted of how effectively you had been able to flout the policy ... I was absolutely not boasting; this appears to be a complete misunderstanding of what I said in the final comment. Once I realized the implication of WP:PUBLICFIGURE I was surprised that it appears that it is applied much more vigorously when making similar comments about Democrats compared to Republicans. I was trying to alert Wikipedia to this issue, in an attempt to improve the project.

Second UTRS Response - August 10

Hello nfitz,

Your talk page access has been restored, and further requests should be posted there.

Favonian
English Wikipedia Administrator

Commentary About Second UTRS Response

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

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

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

Commentary From Others

Respect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Admin Comment following Second UTRS Unblock Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerns About Exposure of IP

Initial Observation of IP Block

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

Later Observation that Local Editors (Account and IP) Can Associate My User Name to IP Address

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

A user of this IP address was blocked by Swarm for the following reason (see our blocking policy)
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Nfitz". The reason given for Nfitz's block is: "reinstating talkpage access based on private email".
This block has been set to expire: 22:27, 11 August 2017. The block ID is: 7723353.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communication with Oversight

Initial Request

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 02:54:28 +0000
Subject: Copy of your message to Oversight: Help, I've been outed by the blocking process

Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nfitz#Urgent_-_Outed

Help!

Response from Oversight

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:39:46 +0000
Subject: Re: [Ticket#201708111000████] Help, I've been outed by the blocking process

Dear Nfitz,

The edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy as no outing has taken place, as has been explained in replied on your talk page. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight>. If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Noticeboards>). 

Sincerely,

The English Wikipedia Oversight team

-- 
English Wikipedia Oversight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight
---
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.

Response to Oversight

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:08:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Ticket#201708111000████] Help, I've been outed by the blocking process

I agree that there is nothing now to suppress, once autolock is disabled. (and besides, I'm now unblocked).

And while under the policy, no outing has taken place, by definition, and everything behaved as designed ... there is still an issue.

[[WP:Autoblock]] clearly says that:

"The only circumstances in which a user may be associated with an IP address, are certain policy violations detailed by the checkuser policy"

However, during the 2-3 days earlier this week, a user (me) was associated with an IP address (our entire office), for anyone in our office, who chose to try and edit a document (whether logged in or not).  So while I've not been outed, by the definition of [[WP:DOX]], I've still been outed, by the English-language definition. And the how the system is functioning, and designed, may not be as originally intended. i.e. there maybe a systemic issue.

However, this probably isn't an oversight issue. Nor do I particularly want to publish it widely.

Can you advise an appropriate avenue? Keeping in mind that I'm right off a controversial block, and I think there's some that will shoot the messenger, before hearing the message.

Thanks, █████████

Response from Oversight

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:12:40 +0000
Subject: Re: [Ticket#201708111000████] Help, I've been outed by the blocking process

Dear █████████████@████████████,

If you really feel strongly about it, you can discuss it at the talk page of the Blocking policy: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy> 

However, given your recent behaviour on the site, you may want to think twice pushing this kind of pedantic button.  Your block was repeatedly confirmed to be legitimate, and many years of experience have led to the standardization of blocking accounts with autoblock turned on, due to the frequency of angry users trying to continue editing by creating additional accounts, or just not logging in. There is no indication that any other person was affected by the block. 

This request is now closed, and no further responses are likely, as this is not an Oversight issue.

Sincerely,

The English Wikipedia Oversight team

-- 
English Wikipedia Oversight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight
---
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.

Response to Oversight

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:32:06 -0000
Subject: Re: [Ticket#201708111000████] Help, I've been outed by the blocking process

I do see that there is a conflict between a clear policy, and how it has been enacted. And while in my case, no harm was done, I do fear that it may cause a real problem for someone one day if not remedied. It would be remiss of me to not raise the issue.

I can't believe that no other person has, or will ever be, effected by such a block! Even if the blocking process isn't changed, there is no reason for the block message to link the IP to the username.

I do object however, to this being characterized as a "pedantic" button, given the possibility of great harm; it's hardly a minor detail. Besides, to most people, the entire project is nothing but an exercise in pedantry! :)

I also object to the to the reference to my "recent behaviour". There is no shame in being ignorant - and now I have learned something. Anyone who thinks that there is shame in being ignorant, is an ignorant fool, who fails to learn from their mistakes.

nfitz

Claim of Overreaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing with this kind of drama, and with people who don't understand BLP violations, with people who can't or won't read and simply accuse others of things they haven't done, yeah, that may be why some people get tired of dealing with Wikipedia. Please don't actually try jumping through a goal post, unless you're a neutrino. Now, if you can find the time to write all this up, surely you can find three minutes to write an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The drama would have been greatly diminished if you hadn't have actually given the incorrect answer for the first question I posted at the beginning of the original 3-day block, which the blocking admin later corrected. The issue isn't the 3 minutes to write the request, but, as has been pointed out, understanding WP:BLP. I just copied it to Word, using a typical 11pt single-spaced Arial font. It's 17 pages and 6,400 words. Personally, I can't read that in 3 minutes, let alone think about it and adsorb it.Nfitz (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nfitz, the wall of text was really unnecessary, but my offer still stands. Best of luck. Alex Shih ^Talk 14:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I do tire of having to deal with people who treat the bullet points at WP:EQ as a to do list on how to manipulate a user into a transgression, almost making me question my own sanity. Nfitz (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I would consider this entire episode, from the original offending comments, to your most recent wall of text, to be a tantrum. That is not an insult intended to solicit a reaction, merely an honest observation. In the context of blocked users I've dealt with, your behavior in response to what was a originally a warning is certainly unreasonable, and that same behavior is what's solely responsible for escalating a warning to an indefinite block. It's really not that difficult to submit an acceptable unblock request. Any person can be unblocked after simply showing administrators that they have educated themselves on the relevant policies. Rather than doing that, you've unleashed torrents and torrents of commentary, continuing to claim that you're a victim of unfair treatment (and failing to comprehend the considerable leeway given to you), failing to heed any of the endless reasonable explanations provided to you, making a big kerfuffle over a run-of-the-mill autoblock, writing paragraphs upon paragraphs of text, all while claiming that you simply cannot find the time to read over a single policy and deduce the simple concept that "words can have consequences, so you can't just say whatever you want". You're not being treated unfairly, Nfitz. Quite frankly, you're still being extended an exceptional level of patience due to the fact that you are established. Swarm ♠ 05:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how your "observations" about tantrums is constructive. I've submitted two perfectly fine unblock requests, that did not include torrents and torrents of commentary. I pleaded guilty to all charges, except the charge that I was bragging which got the indefinite block (yeah, I guess I am claiming the charge about bragging was unfair - but I copped to the BLP issues - and isn't that the point?).

You imply I'm doing something odd, rather than simply submitting a 3-minute long unblock request. And yet WP:Guide to appealing blocks clearly says It's important that you understand the reasons why the administrator blocked you 'before' starting an unblock request. ... Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them, though first you have to read the policies they have linked as the reason for the block. As I noted, I haven't fully got my head around WP:BLPTALK which Alex Shih expressed concern about. Nfitz (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said you would answer simple questions. I figured that I'd ask one or two simple questions to figure out a couple of details, that still are challenging me a bit, and write an unblock request. But you didn't answer the simple question? It's not really that difficult to answer a simple question.Nfitz (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simple questions can be asked in one or two sentences, as demonstrated by your own self below. Since the initial block, you've clearly dedicated an exceptionally significant amount of time to writing paragraphs upon paragraphs of text that no administrator has perceived as relevant or helpful, while also ignoring the significant amount of text that has already been provided to you by administrators in return. As an administrator who has logged nearly a thousand blocking actions, I can confidently tell you that this is exceptionally "odd" behavior, to say the absolute least. Swarm ♠ 07:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage Access Removed Again - August 12, 2017

I have removed this again as you are only digging yourself in further. You have had enough explanations. There are policy pages you can read. Your next step is to post an unblock request. Until you are ready to do that you do not need your page. I left email enabled so it should be straightforward to request page access when you are ready to post an unblock. Until then it doesn't serve your purposes to continuing relitigate the meaning of the policy. Any admin can review and revoke this action at their discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Email Request to Restore Talkpage Access

Email from Nfitz

There has been no relitigating the meaning of the policy since before I filed my first unblock request.

I am allowed to ask questions about the policy before my unblock request to increase/confirm my understanding.

I've just spent 40 minutes cleaning up the formatting of this, to make it much easier to follow, in preparation for an unblock request which is now a massive edit conflict.

Please restore talk page access. I have done nothing to abuse this since it was restored

Response

Nfitz - I have seen your email. Clearly you don't agree with my interpretation. All I require is confirmation that you are ready to post your unblock request. That, and nothing else. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Email Request to Restore Talkpage Access

Email from Nfitz

My understanding is that I am to understand the reasons why the administrator blocked me before starting an unblock request. And the reason why is not having an adequate understand of BLP.

In particular the blocking admin yesterday asked that "If you have any specific questions about BLP, feel free to ask".

However, you appear to be wheel-warring with them, by instead blocking my talk page access, so I cannot ask specific questions.

Please <s>list</s>lift the talk page block, so I can ask specific questions (and continue the edit simply cleaning up the page, without removing any comment, or adding any material not already in evidence).

Talkpage Restoration Request (UTRS) - August 12

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

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

UTRS appeal #18971 was submitted on Aug 12, 2017 08:28:20. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Unblock Form

Why do you believe you should be unblocked?
I'm only requesting restoration of talk page access at this time. I'm not requesting a change to the block itself. Talk page access was restored on Thursday. Since the second block request was denied shortly afterward, I have not relitigated the blocks relating to BLP. I've simply responded to comments by others, remained civil, and tried to ask a question about the BLP process. I will try harder not to respond to the comments being made about me, that are only not moving forward the process.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?
My talk page, to ask questions about BLP policy (so I can better understand it), to complete the reorganization of material on my page (including providing copies of my earlier unblock requests), and submit an third unblock request.

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.
User Spartaz thinks that I shouldn't be able to answer any further questions, and I am digging myself in further. He could well be right - though it's difficult when people come to my page unbidden and appear to violate WP:5P4, criticizing my actions, and ignoring my questions.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?
WP:Guide to appealing blocks says It's important that you understand the reasons why the administrator blocked you before starting an unblock request. ... Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them, though first you have to read the policies they have linked as the reason for the block.

UTRS Email Response - August 13

Hello nfitz,

I will treat your answer to the first two questions as a confirmation that you will adhere to the proper usage of talk page while being blocked, and for that I will restore your talk page access shortly.

Alex Shih
English Wikipedia Administrator

Questions about BLP

1 - What does Contentious Mean?

I will for a third time, assume good faith and ask: What does contentious actually mean in this context. Debatable? Causing an argument? If you take that to the extreme - well we'd have to block most people who ever post to ANI for a start. Nfitz (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment: My understanding of "contentious" in BLP/BLPTALK is no personal attacks of any kind, whether or not if it's verified. And it has nothing to do with censorship. Alex Shih ^Talk 07:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That seems reasonable. Nfitz (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stated: 'If you have any specific questions about BLP, feel free to ask, but we're not going to get caught up debating semantics such as "what does 'contentious' even mean?"' The fact that you have thrice repeated this question indicates that you are being difficult. Any reasonable person, should they actually not understand the definition of the word "contentious", would simply have looked it up. You've flatly indicated that you are unwilling to do so, or are unable to comprehend the result of doing so. This—from my perspective—will permanently go on the record as evidence of unwillingness to listen. Swarm ♠ 07:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 - BLP Status of Quotes, Headline, and URL contents?

See below. Swarm ♠ 07:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Shortly before my first unblock request, my 3-day block was extended to 7-days with removal of talk page access diff. I've previously noted at this point, I still was misinterpreting BLP, so in many ways it was a fair cop. In the comment, it refers to the edit above, which I believe is diff. There is a lot of potentially contentious stuff in that comment. Other than a reference to the discussion in sentence 2, the remaining stuff is either a direct quote by some of the most powerful leaders in that country, the title of the articles of major organization (though Fox News may be biased) or the contents of the URL itself. Nfitz (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the actioning administrator: the comment you linked to, in my view, constituted both a reaffirmation and an attempt at justification of your previous comments—whether or not you were technically quoting somebody else, or referencing a news article, the intent of doing so obviously seemed to be to reinforce highly contentious views that you had already expressed, whereas the correct course of action in the context of BLP would be to retract them without any hesitation. Given the fact that you were discussing political figures with massive numbers of supporters, it's virtually impossible to credibly argue that such views couldn't provoke any sort of argument (i.e. "contentious"), challenge, or be perceived as negative. Swarm ♠ 06:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you. Guilty on all charges. That comment was on August 8th 7:41 pm. The 7-day block was at 1:12 AM on August 9th. And between then, and my first unblock request at 3:48 AM on August 9th, I had a Eureka moment, while again re-reading WP:PUBLICFIGURE. So my mind changed 180° in a few minutes - as it does. This is why I assumed my first unblock request and then the second would be successful. It is the failure of those requests, that has lead to what some perceive as too many questions. I'm sorry if I've been too verbose ... I'm trying to be completely transparent, and submit an unblock request that addresses all concerns. I don't think I've made a BLP violation in the last 5 days since that moment; I think the violations were all in the first 24-hours of the block, before I realised my mistake. Nfitz (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Is simply a quote from a leading politician, or a headline or URL in a reliable publication automatically a BLP violation on a User Talk Page or something similar? Is there any difference if the person in connection has admitted in public to it? (Alternatively, was the BLP violation merely for ... it didn't even cross my mind that discussing REDACTED as a REDACTED could be a BLP violation.?) Nfitz (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Context is everything. If you're strictly discussing on a talk page the technicalities of how, precisely, an article should convey controversial information, you have free reign to speak frankly about views which are supported by reliable sources, so long as you aren't expressing your own views and the information is presented in the article in strict compliance with the MOS. However, if it appears in any way that you're merely expressing your own opinions, you'd be breaching WP:NOTFORUM. Users' individual views are never relevant or tolerable on this project. And, if such views can be perceived as contentious in any way, for being positive or negative, they are a violation of WP:BLP. Swarm ♠ 06:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In very simple terms: You may talk about contentious views expressed by others, with care, if you actually have an encyclopedic, content-related reason for doing so. Short of that, you are forbidden to express your own contentious views. If no such encyclopedic reason exists, you may not express contentious views, even if you're only quoting views expressed by others. Swarm ♠ 06:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - and I can see now how I did cross that line. And to tell the truth, it's not an issue that's likely to come up, given how rarely I edit in the topic area. As I've said, I was only there casually to simply read about someone I'd heard mentioned in the news - but never heard of before - and in trying to fix a broken reference I spotted, ended up with the acronym in question on a user's talk page - and then things escalated, because of my failure to properly understand the BLP policy (which isn't an area I typically edit in, except very uncontroversial football players, where the BLP issues, is do they actually exist). More fundamentally, my understanding of the BLP policy has evolved considerably. Nfitz (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post Question 2 Comments - Edits since block

Noting, for the record, that I have reviewed Niftz's contributions, and that, since the block, and as of this comment, they have logged a staggering sixty edits to their talk page, of which absolutely zero comprised an acceptable unblock request. In addition to this, they have submitted three UTRS block appeals, of which zero constituted an acceptable unblock request. In addition to this, they have submitted two disclosed off-wiki emails to administrators, including one to myself, that have resulted in a denial of any type of block mitigation. In addition to this, they have submitted two additional disclosed off-wiki emails that have resulted in talk page access being restored (in response to two separate revocations of talk page access). Also noting, for the record, that all that is needed to achieve an unblock is one on-wiki unblock request, one UTRS unblock request, or one off-wiki email. Swarm ♠ 08:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been quite enough guidance given, and discussion, on what is permissible. Niftz, your talk page access was restored to enable you to make an appeal here. If you use this talk page for any purpose other than submitting an unblock appeal then access to this page will be revoked again. Just Chilling (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought both simple questions, without debate, and unblock requests were allowed. In fact the unblock request on August 12, to let me edit my talk page, included "to ask questions about BLP policy (so I can better understand it), ". Coincidentally, this was the topic of the third (and only remaining) question. Which I know ask below. Nfitz (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 - What guidance exists exists as to what a blocked User can do on their talk page?

Background

There seems to be conflicting information out there (and in comments here) about what can, and can't, be on the talk page when a user is blocked. And it does appear to have become more restrictive, than it was, when I first joined to the project, shortly after this "experiment" was implemented - WP:Blocked users can edit their own talk page. When users are blocked, they are provided with links to 3 documents about Wikipedia blocks. These are WP:Blocking policy, WP:Appealing a block, and WP:Guide to appealing blocks.

The clearest statement I've seen about what is and isn't allowed is the the WP:Appealing a block document which has a section at the bottom called Abuse of the unblocking process which says: A usual block prevents users from editing all pages except their user talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, and so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Wikipedia, while the block is active. Nfitz (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is there any other guidance I've missed about talk page content while blocked? I've always taken WP:AAB as guidance, particularly the quoted text above, which is relatively unchanged since it was added by User:FT2 back in 2007 diff with a bit of discussion here. Given I've been told clearly that I should only be submitting block unrequests, and perhaps simple questions (though some disagree), I'm a bit confused - as with the latter, I get the impression that If I choose to just sit out the block completely I could chat about the project in a civil and NPOV way with those that pass by - and perhaps even keep a small to do list, of things I want to edit, when I get a chance. Nfitz (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz: The guidelines on use of talk page while blocked are a secondary issue; their aim is to focus people on why they are blocked and prevent further misuse while the original block is sorted out. There's no point using a talk page to co-ordinate contributions if it's not likely there'll be future contributions. I'm not going there, because I can see people posting to try and get across to you a more serious message: that right now, the feeling is pretty much "figure it out, Nfitz, or leave".

What people posting here want is a simple yes/no decision by you - do you agree to follow the community's view on BLP and other policies going forward, while you edit Wikipedia, or not. That's about as unsubtle as it gets, and again, it's not a debate point, it's a yes/no answer. If you can't or won't, then we're done.

That doesn't need a long debate style reply. I won't be taking up the finer debates on the point; nor will most others. The explanations you need have been given, even if you didn't "get it" at the time. I won't be saying anything in any consensus view on block/unblock/ban/unban if it happens so my opinion on your situation doesn't matter.

My experience is that the community is very quick to set aside the past when it's learned from. Those that can say "sorry, I now know what I mustn't do, and I won't do it again", usually get unblocked. Those that can't or who repeat their past, may not. Only you can choose how you come across or what you say. But in your case, the usual ways someone shows "I understand what I did that crossed the line, I have learned from it and I won't do these things if I'm unblocked; is it okay to edit again in a while?", aren't happening.

You need to make a single personal decision here, and you need to explicitly say what you decide, not just gather information and debate around it. You've had a lot of explanation. You can take whatever time you need to read BLP yet again if it helps. You understand now that BLP generally covers any negative comment that isn't in good quality sources, relevant, and significant enough to bear mentioning and agreed to be so by the wider community - not just criminal comments. The community may go further in some cases and that's a matter for consensus each time. If you have any comments or thoughts on the policies/guidelines, discuss that after unblock; it will do more harm than good right now.

If you can follow the community's ways, just say "yes, I agree to follow XYZ", and be explicit what you agree to do, or refrain from doing, that has caused past issues. If you aren't sure but you can at least avoid the issue ("I promise not to edit X type of material/topic or add it to Wikipedia") that might work too. You might have to sit out the rest of the block, but the matter will be resolved once it's done. If you can't or won't or aren't sure you can keep to it, then this may not be right for you, even after many years of editing.

That is probably your most direct route to eventual unblocking. It's provided as my own thought and information only. Most other things distract - and anything that looks like a distraction will add weight to not unblocking. I hope it helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FT2 for the very quick, clear, and unexpected response. Sorry, I somehow missed the alert, in my formatting spree, or I'd have responded sooner. At this point, I feel I've pleaded guilty to just about all charges (except boasting - third block ... although re-reading my unblock request just now, I do see that I was being too defensive) more than once, and not only promised to follow BLP several times, but actually taken the time to understand my comprehension problem, and realize my error (personally, I can never promise to follow a guideline I don't understand ... because to be honest, I'm likely to repeat the error again, if I haven't managed to hit my head against the wall long enough, to understand the issue).

I'd write the unblock request right now. But I've already stayed up way too late, and I'm probably not thinking straight. Best for me to start fresh tomorrow, and write a brief, but concise, request. Nfitz (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, where there have been serious issues (as seen by others), or the discussion has veered close to "can this person be permitted to edit at all", the community often wants to reassure itself that you really do "get it". Expect some level of probing of what exactly you understand of your actions and of what's needed, or the policies - and be assured it's sometimes intense but not hostile. It's not about "pleading guilty". It is mainly to check if you know enough to successfully be serious about any stated intent, and understanding what's needed, so we don't end up here again if you are unblocked. That is all that people need to feel sure about. Similarly you may be asked to sit out any block after agreeing and again, that's not "punishment"; its aim is to distinguish those who have self restraint and accept the community's view, from those whose stated future self-control will only be skin-deep and they'll end up blocked again. (If they haven't the patience to hold back when asked on a block, how on earth will they change whatever caused the issue in the first place?).

In short, the community will look for an unblock that confirms how much of any change can be relied on, what you've learned, and whether any commitment will be kept. For example, if in future you aren't sure, have you got the idea to ask before editing a dubious point, to accept a distasteful consensus or concern (or at worst handle it appropriately by seeking advice on a suitable route), to take on board your peers' concerns - and to take it as meaningful and discuss in a suitable venue first, if someone else considers that your edit might not be suitable. Can you? Will you?

If you don't understand some issues enough to be sure about them, the first question is whether or not you can accept they are policy anyhow. Only then is it relevant to ask, can you take steps to avoid violating them anyhow. Long philosophical debates may not be welcomed (people have limited resources and time!), but if specific things you don't understand might be a problem, say what you're unsure on, and say directly what you will do to avoid such issues. For example, you might ask others first and accept their opinions, if unsure, or post on the talk page instead, or ask if there is a willing admin that you can email "Is this okay..." and avoid accidental BLP violations on the public pages, or just avoid edits where the issues arise.

Again, this is for info, so you have a heads up, and to ensure you understand the mind-set of the community in these unblock discussions. An unblock is a chance to show you can do it. If granted, don't fluff it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third Unblock Unrequest

I've used the same format as UTRS for convenience and consitency.

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

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

Request reason:

see table below Nfitz (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Thank you for taking the time and effort to understand BLP policy. This unblock request was all we were looking for. While I'm sure this situation has been frustrating for you, I appreciate your painstaking attempts at resolving it, and I hope you can trust that there are no hard feelings on the part of any admins involved. Regards, Swarm ♠ 18:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe you should be unblocked?
I've realized my error in interpreting WP:BPL. I understand the piece of WP:BLP that I had previously failed to appreciate (WP:PUBLICFIGURE) applies, even when allegations have been beyond question. This also means that my original comment falls under WP:BLPTALK, and that contentious comments must be avoided unless absolutely necessary - and they seldom are - at least in most of the articles I tend to edit. And while I now realize that my earlier comments in user space and WP:ADMIN are unacceptable, I've never come close to doing anything like that in Main space, and I don't represent any risk, danger, or concern to the project. I strive to follow the rules (and am frustrated when others don't follow them). I have learened and won't repeat this mistake

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?
The same ones I've been editing for years. Generally local stuff, Canadian stuff, and football (particularly younger and up and coming players). I tend to use Wikipedia a lot, both professionally (if only to check how a word is used, or for general interest), I'll fix most errors if I see them, and it's straight forward. Current (but moving slowly) projects include trying to rehabilitate the Nauru national soccer team article (currently in my sandbox - and it may not be rehabilitatable, but does require some tough research), and trying to clean up the 9-year old mess from the Mozaikka ‎sock, that I may be the only person who cares about. I've also recently remembered the joy of working in French, and I'll probably spend more time working on articles there - which are particularly lacking from a perspective Ontarien.

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.
The first and second blocks (3 days and 7 days) I understand completely. The bottom line is I was completely wrong. I accept that. I disagree with the claim in the third block that I was boasting - that is not true - although I can see perhaps why one might assume that. My only reason for my comment that lead to that, was a concern that there might be real bias here; however that isn't relevant to the unblocking process.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?
I think there's been some confusion why I simply just didn't promise earlier to follow BLP, and move one. At first, simply because I didn't think that I was wrong (which I guess makes me twice as wrong). But then, because I wasn't clear on where the limits were - and I wanted to make sure I understood it properly, before making a final unblock request. If stopping and trying to discuss 3 or 4 points, and ask questions, and test assumptions, isn't considered normal, and is considered odd, then I really wonder about the intent and good faith of many who are requesting unblocks. Personally I'd be suspicions of someone who did make a lot of violations, but then turned around on a dime, and promised to behave. Secondly - despite my long experience here, very little of it has been in the BLP area. And much of what has been for living persons, has been the simple addition of a single well-sourced fact (often from what I may have seen on my kitchen table from well respectable sources), or in the subject of football players - where the only controversial question, is if this is a real person or a hoax; I've never really had any need to delve deeper into WP:BLP than WP:BLPSOURCES - nor am I likely to much in the future. This experience has confirmed my desire, to stay away from such a toxic area - particularly in terms of foreign politics.

In the meantime, I appreciate your patience in following this process, and apologize if I've put everyone through too much drama. Nfitz (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: @Yunshui: As the blocking administrators, would you consider this latest unblock request? The key issues have been addressed in my opinion. Alex Shih ^Talk 07:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I support lifting the block. Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Swarm ♠ 18:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have lifted the block without further ado. Swarm ♠ 18:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Hey Nfitz, it's really nice to see the block is now lifted. I have read the long note you wrote earlier just now, and I really wish you well with your health. I have some similar experiences personally but that's a story for another day. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 06:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's always helps to hear support, and that there are others. It's a strange adventure - and I am thanful that it's relatively mild, and a very good healthcare system. Nfitz (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the editor who initially complained: having read this request I'm glad to see you unblocked. Happy editing. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I have to apologize - the post that finally had me blocked I was trying to point out that you were wrong about bias. I'm sorry, you may well have been right! Nfitz (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Welcome back (officially!) Garchy (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spades etymology

OK, now that that’s over; as you indicated an interest in etymology, back to etymology of “call a spade a spade”. Yes, this goes back millennia, was related to shovels, and only took on a racist connotation during the 1920’s. But, I don’t think it was related to blacks using shovels. Another derogatory slur in the 20’s was “black as the ace of spades”. I think it’s more likely that the first slur is related to the second and that spade refers to color, not shovels. The symbol for spades in French playing cards, which are the cards mostly used these days, looks kinda like a shovel. But, there is no relation. The symbol is the same as in early French cards, which were called piques (pikes in English) after a medieval weapon. But, the French cards were modeled after the German cards, where spades were called leaves. The symbol for spades has the same shape (different color) as the German leaves symbol and is fairly obviously a leaf with a stem. Anyhow, it’s a guess, but it looks like spade refers to color. Oh, and welcome back. Objective3000 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd slowly realised that it was all about the playing card, but I hadn't thought of the "black as the ace of spades" phrase, that does ring a bell, vaguely - sounds like something out of Film Noir. But then, I wonder - why call Sam Spade by that name - which I think is where I always assumed (wrongly) that word lead. Nfitz (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The story is that Philip Marlowe and Sam Spade were both named after a real-life black private detective named Samuel Marlowe. Objective3000 (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to all stem from a single source...who is peddling a screenplay. Anmccaff (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. which is why I haven't added it to any article. Although it's persuasive. Objective3000 (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - and I saw the recently reverted edit on the Marlowe page here. It's easy enough to pull the 1920, 1930, 1940 censuses, and find Samuel Benjamin Marlowe of LA. A janitor in 1920, a real estate agent in 1930 with their own office (!), and a painter in 1940. Born 1891 in Jamaica, and a World War vet. Other ancestry.com documents indicate he was a painter, emigrated from Cuba in 1918, was naturalized in 1922 when he was a broker, witnessed by Harry Stancel (sp?) occupation Slime Parlor (well, that's what it looks like), and Chad R. Ransom (there's a good name for a mystery!), ... 1939 photo of son (SAMUEL BENJAMIN MARLOWE JR)in mostly white LA high school, died July 1991, a couple of weeks before his 101st birthday, in LA., carpenter in 1921 city directory, real estate in 1924 directory. Wife's maiden name Irene Albertha Manahan, naturalized in 1935, could write, and witnesses for naturalization were Annie Williams (an undertaker!) and Martha High (housewife). He's in city directories from 1993 to 2002, son died 2003 in LA. And here's the nugget (typing in realtime here), 1928 voter registration lists his occupation as detective (and Republican), 1930 voter reg. as a detective (and a Republican), 1932 sadly no occupations listed, in 1934 he'd switched to Prohibition Party, In 1938, 40, 42, and 44 was an "investigator" (still Prohibition, but Irene can vote now too, and she's a Democrat, by 1944 son and daughter Pearl can both vote, and are Democrat students). No occupation in 1948/1950 (and STILL Prohibition), 3 kids voting now, Miss Rena A is also a Democrat). Son has left home by 1954 (pops up in Florida), and our Samuel is now a Republican again. Wow, 1956 looks computerized, both kids have left home by 1960. Son is listed as a Doctor (of what?) in 1993. His 1918 passenger list landing in Tampa says he's a Gunsmith, and contact info is a N. Silvers in Havana, with a final destination of New York City. Son is a chiropractor in LA (graduated 1950 from University of California Berkely & San Francisco) in 1955. 1991 death certificate is available, which may have father's name. There's a match for 1959 for a car washer in the Miami Beach city directory ... father son ... probably false positve, and the ONLY one I got in the USA. Family tree of questionable provenance, saying Irene died in 1967 and mother was Ann Scott, hmm, and a potential BLP violation. Son might have married in Ohio, with wife and child - microfiche only. Wow. I'd have never started transcribing that, if I thought there was so much stuff. I've been using ancestry for genealogy for over 12 years. I've NEVER had such a haul on ANY of my own relatives! And the name must be very unique, other than that car washer in Florida, the only name match on planet, was an 8-month-old baby that died in Missouri in the 1880s. Sorry, if that's a bit verbose and Original Research - but all primary records, and in my opinion, excellent quality, with lots of info to connect it all together (lots of addresses). And living until 1991, he had a long time, to tell a lot of stories, to people still living now. Not sure if this will help anyone - I don't think it can be used for much in itself, but it might help someone, know where to search for more. Wow ... Thanks guys, for sending me down this rabbit hole, I didn't have time for. :) Also see website Nfitz (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I should have started at THIS Jamaican website] which confirms a lot of what I just found, including his obituaries, many years serving in Africa in Expeditionary Force, in police in Jamaica, before coming to USA. And a 1927 advertisement for the S.B. Marlow Detective Agency in the California Eagle ... "roberies, murders, arson, kidnapping ....) ... and a 1930 article he wrote himself about his "Assistant Chief of the Marlowe Detective Agency", and referencing his film career. He was in King Kong (1933 film) (not proven), according to this and [IMDB. A second obit says he was a Mason, a charter member of a Credit Union, helped to found the black Screen Actors Guild ... Yeah, I think this guy is for real. He certainly had the background to be the detective. And there's contemporary references. But need the proof of the link to Sam Spade and Marlowe really. But I think there should be a Wikipedia article for Samuel Benjamin Marlowe! Heck, there should a movie. Wow! Nfitz (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"For real" and "directly inspired the characters and names of Sam Spade and Philip Marlow" are two very separate concepts. Anmccaff (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll leave that to others. (good gosh, is it possible it's Sam Spade, because it's named after Sam, and he's a S ...). Though there's probably enough to verify that there was a real LA detective of that name in that period, and to say something like "descendants of Samuel Marlowe, a 1920s through 1940s black LA gumshoe (ref, ref, ref) have claimed that (ref, ref). But I have no stake in that race (hopefully stake is not also some slur I've never heard of! :). And gosh - how can there not be an article about this guy ... but that's a separate issue. Nfitz (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My wife's first comment on hearing all this, is she always assumed that Marlowe in the books was related name-wise to Marlow in Heart of Darkness. I pondered how common the name is. Number of Marlowe's in the 1920 US census - only 1,366 (about 6 times more Marlow's). Taylor - 316,000. Franklin, 48,000. It's not a particularly common spelling. Just thinking out loud. It does seem rather week for the Philip Marlowe article - perhaps stronger for the Sam Spade. Need one more thing really ... Nfitz (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's this. Nfitz (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

If you don't know what you are talking about, say nowt. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're digging yourself into a hole at ANI and elsewhere in relation to the same general issue. This is far from the first time of late and I'm tempted to propose that you are banned for some time from the drama boards and have intimated as much in the ANI thread. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I? First time I've logged in, in a day. And no one has pinged me. Thanks for the head's up. There's nothing else really to say though; since last time I commented the consensus clearly didn't agree with me; not sure where it's gone since though. I genuinely don't believe there was any malice in the comment; some mischief perhaps, but not malice. I've presented my view; there's nothing really to say until the accused returns from their travels to defend themselves. I bear you no ill will, BTW; or anyone. I have no axe. And I'm still genuinely curious about the whole caste/race thing I inadvertently stumbled into! Thanks for the heads up ... sigh I should just avoid the place ... let's see which seldom-punished cliquist is being incivil to me now, for the high crime of not creating unaminity. Nfitz (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inded, you should "just avoid the place". And if you do not then you will be forced to do so eventually because you are so far out of kilter there, so often of late, that it is becoming a competence issue. I may not have commented in a thread involving you before but that does not mean your WP activity is unknown to me. It will end badly, as it so often does when someone with too little information and a most definite axe to grind starts inserting themselves into drama board disputes, whether on the boards themselves or elsewhere. Why you have recently become so contrarian isn't something I can explain, of course, but you've been around long enough that, surely, you must recognise what the outcome is going to be, regardless of whether you consider it to be the action of a clique or not? Choose your battles wisely. - Sitush (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your motive is here; I merely expressed my concern about your very clear and unequivocal personal attack. I was civil and even complementary about your editing skill in a completely different area, which you've tried to turn that into some kind of odd competence claim in a topic area that I've neither ever edited in or commented upon! I did pop over to ANI and other than a single minor comment the only critism I see of me since I last read it yesterday is from you! Disagreeing with someone isn't an offence. I don't have to see it the same was as you. And if I do so, you don't have to bully and spin stories. (BTW, what was that road map comment all about ... I make it clear that I'm not trying to grass you; and you threaten to take that to ANI? How does that work? For someone to have dealt with so much real harassment over the years, I'm not sure why you are getting stirred up about mine; if the remarks were meant as you've interpreted, you've certainly got every right to have a grievance (though not to personally attack). But as you've pretty much won the entire debate, and gotten ANI to give you what you want - I'm not sure why you come back a day later and start again. Nfitz (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sitush (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which can now be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#Tendentious behaviour of Nfitz. The only positive here, is that for once, behaviour isn't spelled incorrectly! Nfitz (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you had concerns, you could simply raise them with me, rather than running to ANI. Nfitz (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, I haven't read too much into the extended conversations, but if it's (merely) about why editors can get away with "fuck off", my opinion is that it highly depends on the context. I have some thoughts about this too, and if you'd like I can explain my understanding of the rationale. In the meanwhile, may I request that if possible, to not comment in that thread anymore even if you are being pinged? Please. Alex Shih ^Talk 14:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I said I wasn't going to respond, that was literally used against me, and the block was proposed. It's not just about calling someone a fuck off or fuckwit, but why we apparently have community consensus that WP:CIVIL and WP:5P4 don't seem to have import any more. And then this bizarre accusation of outing that someone was once sanctioned as a sock puppet. Nfitz (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL and WP:5P4 still matters, but I guess in reality it cannot really be enforced properly. I don't believe it's the consensus, but it's the unspoken mutual understanding of those who participate in the process regularly. I don't think it's necessary to think nor speak too much about this, so it's probably better for you to just not talk about it or just logoff. By the way, why is it relevant to bring out the backstory? It adds nothing of value to your point. Ideally it would be better if you could strike that comment out. Whatever you do, just remember that Jimbo Wales might agree with you. Alex Shih ^Talk 15:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done ... but I'm once again not comprehending something - how someone's history that they themselves publicize is verbotten. Interesting - I've never looked at his stuff much, trying to normally stay out of the meta-politics - I actually wondered if he was part of the problem, given the free reign he seems to give some of the admins. Though I'm not aware of misogyny being a huge issue ... but I've also avoided the whole gamergate discussions so effectively, I actually had to read the Wiki article about it not so long ago, because I actually had little idea what it was about, other than the toxicity. Nfitz (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it comes down to whether or not it's relevant, otherwise WP:POLEMIC can be immediately applied. I think you should steer clear of ~~AN/I~~ contentious discussions for a while, I've been trying to do the same too. Can you do that for me? Anyway, I am not familiar with GamerGate also, other than one of the sanctioned editor was responsible for my block log (interesting fact of the day, lol). Here's another distraction read for you if you haven't read it already. Alex Shih ^Talk 15:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've read up on the real-word GamerGate ... how such clear misogyny had any impact here I haven't even dared to figure out. And I keep seeing references of GamerGate sanctions in many topic areas that I have no comprehension why. I should really read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate but it's daunting and not particularly accessible for a foreigner whose gaming days were mostly behind him when the Commodore 64 came out. ... though it all seems to boil down to discretionary any gender-related dispute or controversy or associated people, all broadly construed. Which seems infinite in it scope - and probably covers every article about US politics these days, with the military trans ban. However, I seem to have avoided stepping in this one - though as I've observed, those of us left of US political centre, do seem to get more editing leeway. (not that I'm saying I'm left-wing ... around here, we'd call Clinton a conservative, and "socialists" like Sanders look slightly right-of centre when you analyze their platform ... so he'd be a red Tory and my support flips anywhere centrist, depending on the leader and issues). But I do, as usual, digress. Bottom-line, I think there's a lot of assumptions by some, that many of us actually understand what some of these policies are about, when even the foreign news stories about them aren't widely known, outside very small circles.

The rest of that is all new to me too. There's days of procrastination in there. Wow ... not sure how the whole thing ended ... but I guess there's a case for using IPs to edit certain subjects (and for the record, I've only ever done that relating to a local club ... or is it an international crime syndicate, the claims vary - though I don't recall the police ever blowing the doors of the local Buffalo lodge with a small army in the middle of the night).

Yes, I can try and do it. I've tried to avoid inserting myself in any discussions unless it's an extremely obvious comment that I've got some special knowledge on - it's a bit tougher though when you see the whole thing unfold before you elsewhere, it gets dragged to ANI, and the entire root cause of the whole thing is so utterly obvious (or apparently not it seems). Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tried; I didn't think I couldn't apologize to Ken though (who I'll send some links he may not be aware of inside the project that should probably be revdel) - once I sort out a new burn email account. I also hatted a bit more of that outing thing, and removed some more of my text that should be suppressed (or should I do the opposite, and highlight it so it gets revdeled?). Nfitz (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From your contribution history I see you've been around for a while but not super active as a Wikipedian (this is an observation, not a criticism).

Unfortunately, despite the fine sounding words at WP:CIVIL, the reality is Wikipedia has more of "civility meme" instead of a functioning civility policy. (See User:NE_Ent/Notes_on_civility for backstory). So, yea, in Wikipedia-as-it-should-be an occasional "Fuck off" shouldn't fly, but as it is -- we even have a former arbitrator justifying the occasional use of the term User:Beeblebrox/fuck_off. (In fairness, if you look at the failed RFC he put a lot of ultimately unsuccessful effort to help achieve a coherent policy).
Secondly, Bishonen is about the last admin you'd want to complain about Sitush about -- see the output of the interaction tool] output. Even so, you're entitled to one polite request on an admin's page -- if they don't want to reply, they don't have to unless WP:ADMINACCT applies, and I haven't seen evidence that it does. Specifically ADMINACCT only requires an admin to discuss use of admin tools, not why they didn't do something. (They're volunteers that get the same crappy pay the rest of us do.)
The term http://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=Sitush"user page" is a misnomer -- it's not actually yours. (Like everything else around it, it's actually WP:WMF's). The purpose of the page is to share what you want other users to know about yourself. So you should expect other editors to read it if you attract their curiosity somehow. The place for general boring notes to yourself is your sandbox User:Nfitz/sandbox. and there's not rule use have to just have one. (Mine sandbox is a list of sandboxes, e.g. User:NE Ent/sandbox2, .../sandbox3. etc. The place for dirt you may need on other editors someday is off-wiki e.g. Google Docs or local storage.
A little known fact about ANI is you're not required to reply is someone if talking smack about you their. A even lesser known fact is that it's usually best not to. If an actual admin asks you a direct question, a short, to the point reply is warranted, but otherwise just walking away is best. See User:NE Ent/Unilateral interaction ban.
Wikipedia isn't fair -- see WP:NOJUSTICE. If that is inherently something you're not comfortable with long term, you're not going to be happy here long term. That's not meant as the threat it might sound like -- I'm trying to help you here -- but just the sad reality of how this place works. We're pretty good at being an encyclopedia and pretty bad at most other things. NE Ent 16:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. No criticism felt - I'm a strong advocate of "Just the facts"; sadly many seem to react poorly to that. Oh, so much history I don't know. I'd never witnessed the interaction between them at all - perhaps because I don't tend to edit in the area of the subcontinent that much outside soccer and Gujurat (having once worked there). (what brought Sitush to start an AFD discussion on a Louisiana Jew with WP:DYK history on the Monday following the weekend's KKK terror attack, the first in decades still baffles me - because I don't think there's any evidence of malice or Antisemitism - and that is ultimately where all this started, and the first place I saw his name, as I do track AFD, particularly for football, Canadians, and notable small-town Americans). I appreciate the help. I know I'd do better just to ignore the stuff I see that doesn't seem right, unfortunately I've a very deeply instilled "see something, say something" belief ... which does get me into trouble, both here, and in the real world. And of course saying something doesn't mean there's anything to it really - but if one doesn't discuss, and then dismiss it. Thanks again. Nfitz (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The most likely explanation for Sitush's involvement is that they are highly active in Afd. [32]. More importantly, continuing to discuss them a) serves no benefit to the encyclopedia, and b) does not demonstrate a desire to move away from past conflict. A longstanding ideal WP:Personal is "Comment on the content, not the contributor." NE Ent 01:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm surprised I've not run into them before - or perhaps I have, and it was so low key, I never noticed. Most of their AFDs seem pretty non-contentious. Looks like they've been on a Shreveport bent lately - and I suspect the holocaust survivor just caught in the middle of it just as the KKK rally ended, with no malice. I never criticized their taking it to AFD though - that was never part of the argument - I was simply defending the person they were accusing at ANI of calling them anti-Semitic. I believe I commented they had they had every right to AFD it, and my only comment at the actual AFD was to actually defend and expand on Sitush's claim that some of the references didn't meet BLP. It took some research to establish more sources, and a greater time period of sources; something I'm still quietly working on. Yes, I talk too much.
- I forgot to reply on you ADMINACCT doesn't apply thought. Bishonen was the last admin to offer an extensive opinion before the discussion was closed, and called me out on stuff no-one else discussed. WP:ADMINACCT doesn't just refer to tools. That's the first sentence. Then it says Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions and Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions. As such, very politely inquiring on their thoughts behind their statement, seemed to me to be very reasonable; I don't see any limit to just one question, if anything it's the opposite. Given the length of time it took to get a response, I think I was beyond civil - especially when the response to the second question was so unnecessarily rude. How no one else is seeing this as an WP:ADMINACCT fail I don't know (not that it was a big enough one for me to really care ... but it seems quite the opposite that I'm being roasted for following procedure when I'm not clear on something - politely discussing on the talk page; and they are off the hook completely for not following WP:ADMINACCT; I mean it's not like they were required to comment so extensively at ANI. Though who knows, perhaps I've missed the point ... again). Nfitz (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to leave a diff. of Bishonen's contribution. In particular the edit summary Nfitz, you might do well to cut back drastically on your commentary at ANI before somebody opens a thread proposing banning you from it. is clearly Admin action that WP:ACCT applies to. As requested, I had stayed out of any further ANI cases, and followed procedure by very politely querying them about the whole thing. Nfitz (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING

I am writing to inform you that your recent posts to WP:AN/I violated the Wikipedia policy against "outing" other editors – which you can find here – by publishing private information about me which I do not wish to be made public. Note that my background as an editor, including my previous accounts, is thoroughly covered at User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory, in which I deal with the circumstance you posted about, but without revealing the information which I wish to remain private.

Please note that outing often leads to being blocked from editing, especially after the editor has been informed not to do it. If you repost my private information, I will have no choice but to bring your violation to the attention of an admin for their adjudication.

Just a few days ago, another editor posted almost exactly the same information elsewhere, and Drmies, the admin who responded to my complaint, posted this to him:

WP:OUTING in no way gives you permission to fish around for what you can find. You were offered a link by the editor himself to his "backstory"--that's it. The rest has no bearing on the discussion you're having ("whataboutism" is best left for Facebook threads) and since the user has not voluntarily shared that information with you or the rest of the world, it is not your prerogative to post it. Thank you.

I have redacted the information, and have asked WP:OVERSIGHT to oversight it. Please do not restore it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I haven't seen whatever Drmies responded to. I really don't know how telling people you were once blocked for ████████████ (and I didn't even do that except in response to a question) can possibly be outing something as you say that yourself. I don't mention any personal information. I don't know what you think I know, but I don't know it. I have looked up up off-wiki, but what I found, didn't even mention your block; it was all recent stuff. There's nothing I don't know, that you haven't put out there yourself, and could have been oversighted years ago. Of course I'll try and avoid outing you ... but not knowing how I outed you, it is difficult - though I don't tend to discuss you. And given that I haven't done anything even remotely sneaky to get information, there's likely something out there in Wikispace that should be oversighted, if this is a real issue.

I strongly support and endorse the WP:OUTING policy (and it's also in my own best interest - with a quarter-century online presence, I'm hardly difficult to out - I think there's text somewhere from me dissing Wikipedia in one of the Nupedia discussions in the 1990s ... oh wait, those dates don't work. Hmm, was there an earlier project ... this would have been more mid-1990s. But I digress )

Somebody else did similar recently? Is it possible that something became unoversighted? Have we had this discussion before ... I've hit the "I remember a Babylon 5 discussion from before it aired better than a discussion last month stage" some times (which is hopefully a temporary symptom of insomnia)? Which is why I've taken to writing more notes that are only for my benefit. Maybe I can figure it out, if I go look at what you redacted. Nfitz (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed you the link; incidentally, ANI is best thought of as Z'ha'dum and best avoided by humans. NE Ent 23:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Why didn't someone say something. I thought more like the United Nations building. Hmm, I guess that makes ... oh, I'd better stop there. I'll read later - I'm starting kid duty for a while. Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got messages. Hmm, I'm surprised ... didn't see that coming. Based on the recent discussion I had regarding my ip/username outing to anyone on my corporate ip subnet, I think the official answer would be that outing doesn't count if you did it yourself. But I think they are wrong. I'm quite happy if anyone wants to suppress any of my edits (not that I expect I get a vote). But I am surprised there hasn't been more RevDel done. I'll email Ken some links ... later; school finally starts tomorrow, I still suffer from insomnia, one child is (or was) vomiting ... and I expect will be with me at the sleep specialist tomorrow, instead of school (quite gleefully describing my snoring I expect ...). Nfitz (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

topic ban from Wikipedia space

Per this discussion, you are indefinitely banned from making edits in the Wikipedia namespace with the sole exception of reporting vandalism to AIV. You can appeal this topic ban at AN/I in six months. This restriction is logged here. Katie^talk 01:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katie, just for clarity: there's normally in these cases also a common-sense exception allowing the user to respond if somebody else should mention or allude to them in Wikipedia space. Would you agree that that is understood here too? Bishonen | talk 07:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Since I asked for clarification earlier (I almost feel we are in new territory here - has such a ban ever been done before?), I did come across WP:BANEX, however it's not clear to me if the way the ban was phrased means that Unless stated otherwise has been triggered or not. And there are unintended problems such as routine and mundane places like WP:REFUND and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football; I guess the former I flag down an admin. The latter is I leave it for someone else - but frustrating that I can't even correct something; I'd much prefer if the ban was a bit more targeted towards WP:AN/* - which is what I was trying to propose, when the close came. Nfitz (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I have no problem with common sense exceptions, which is why I specifically carved out vandalism, but I feel the topic ban was proposed to stop the arguments and walls of text that comprise his responses.

Nfitz, to address the concerns you raised on my talk (let's keep this conversation here – ping me if you want me to respond):

Yes, the topic ban extends to the entire Wikipedia namespace. That's what was proposed and discussed.
I closed the discussion when I did because no progress was being made and consensus was clear. Honestly, I did it to save you from yourself. A counterproposal from you probably wouldn't have been received well. Unfortunately, I don't think you can see that, which is why so many editors are frustrated with you.
You can appeal to ANI in six months.
Jays aren't even going to make the playoffs. Sadly, neither are the Royals.
BANEX applies, but you need to be very careful in how you approach it and be very clear in your explanation for the edit. If you're mentioned in an edit in the Wikipedia namespace, you're allowed to respond, but make sure you note in an edit summary or in the edit itself that BANEX applies. And for goodness' sake, be brief.

Go edit articles. Write the encyclopedia, and leave the drama alone. You're really close to a long block, and I don't want to see that happen. Katie^talk 13:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: But only the WP namespace? So I'm still good in the separate WT namespace (as per WP:ALIAS?
Well received or not, I think I was jammed up. It seems that I was convicted less on what actually happened, but on spun versions and long past mistakes, long admitted to and not repeated.
That aside, I can grudgingly accept and follow an ANI block - which I can see that perhaps I've outstayed my welcome - particularly with my contentious and unpopular position that we should treat WP:CIVIL like it'a a policy. But the concept of blocking me from AFD where I have participated heavily in the last year - and I don't recall any complaints in the last year, and probably two to three, when I start looking at my talk page.
I don't want to challenge the entire topic ban, but I do want to vary it. Is my only recourse really Arbcom? Or can I appeal the extent of the ban to WP:ANI despite the restriction on not being able to appeal for 6 months? Or is there another venue? I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be some kind of dispute resolution or mediation process - or perhaps there is, and I've not grasped it.
Jays do indeed seem done. KC could still pull it off. Fortunately my real passion is soccer, and both TFC and Sporting Kansas appear playoff bound.
I do want to edit. I had no intention of ever being back in ANI - which is why I was trying to make sure I understood the rules that I'd seemingly misinterpreted. But a lot of that work for me has been trying to improve borderline articles, that does require some communication in AFD. Nfitz (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my goodness.

If you want to stick your head in the lion's mouth and start in the WT space, it wasn't specifically mentioned.
As far as appeal, you can ask Arbcom via their mailing list, but you won't be successful. And if you edit ANI about this only a couple of days after the close, you're going to get blocked. Not by me, because I'm out, but someone will do it.
You don't need to edit AFD to improve borderline articles. Just improve them.
COYS. Katie^talk 18:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off to WT:CIVILITY. :) Sorry to disappoint the peanut gallery, who I know are watching this with anticipation, but I was only thinking of editing the very dull, geekish WT pages already near the top of my more frequently edited list. Thanks for clarifying that.
Well we are off to Arbcom then. Not quickly though, I'm still interviewing candidates ... I a little concerned about the lack of diversity - it's 2017 after all.
Yes, improving is an option; but often with the one's I deal with, there's an hour or two of research involved to do properly, in some foreign language. And my editing time is normally pretty limited; it would be nice to have the option of saying "hang on, what about this". And sometimes, the response tells you something you didn't realize, saving you a lot of time.
Well, they are okay. However the UK team I support just got bumped from level 6 to level 9.

Thanks - I appreciate the transparency. And the civility. And even the WP:Rope that I'll leave bundled elsewhere. I'll ping you if I have any future questions. Nfitz (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia space" includes anything with a "Wikipedia" address, and that include "Wikipedia talk." You are banned from that. If you don't believe that is the case, post there and see what happens. I can tell you one thing that will happen: I will post on AN/I asking for an indef block on you. Stop this shit and do what the ban intended: go edit articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the concern Ken. The blocking admin {@KrakatoaKatie: said that WT wasn't included, just WP. I don't recall any discussion of "talk" at ANI - nor do I recall any troublesome issues in editing there in 12 years, despite some of my most edited pages being in that namespace. Can Katie confirm, as this warning seems very strong, given it contradicts what the blocking admin stated just above. Nfitz (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you want to edit WT, and take the risk of getting hauled back to ANI or blocked, go ahead. You can go ahead and edit the Wikipedia space and run the same risk. You can go running on the beach on Key West in the middle of this hurricane. None of these things are advisable as they have consequences, but it's your life. Ken is correct and I was distracted – don't edit the WT space at the risk of violating the topic ban. Now stop talking, because I'm not answering anymore. Katie^talk 17:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I thought the block was only for one namespace, I was simply asking for clarification as per WP:BANEX. I have absolutely no intention of violating the ban, or even skirting it with pointy WT edits - but sooner or later I'd have commented on something in WT:FPL where I have regularly commented since it's inception without complaint. Thank your for the clarificaiton. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted - a good Wikilawyer - apply within

Help needed preparing documents for appeal. Special skills needed in translating unclear digressions into simple to understand text and handling stubborn client. Lousy pay. Long hours. The experience would look great on your CV. A good sense of humour is essential. Apply within. Nfitz (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear the result. I think it would be wiser to talk about "appealing the appeal" after the issue dies down. Alex Shih ^Talk 03:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I'm a bit miffed that thread got closed after I said I was putting a proposal together. But it was likely buried deep enough that the closer had no idea it was there. Here's the timeline. All times North American Eastern Daylight.

18:52 I signal at ANI that I might accept a topic ban, but the proposal is too blunt, and that I was putting together some points.
19:02 I mention to someone I'm putting together a proposal.
19:26 I give pretty good idea what I'm going to propose (when will I learn, I should have just typed a 2-line proposal)
20:33 Last person with a new comment recommends to post for topic ban and ask for close
20:38 Closer announces at top of thread, that they will close discussion. Gosh, I wish I'd seen that before now. At worst I wouldn't have wasted 50 minutes! :)
20:46 I finish tidy up edits and responses in thread and start proposal edit.
20:49 Discussion closed, topic ban added
21:36 Present alternative proposal

Perhaps it wouldn't have made a difference - it seemed like reasonable proposal to me. But perhaps reasonable isn't part of the process. I can understand why so many editors who run into trouble, leave, or take revenge somehow. If I was still a child I probably wouldn't be cracking jokes.

I suppose that's not grounds for reopening. Nfitz (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the topic ban was not only to stop you from posting in Wikipedia space (which, BTW, includes Wikipedia talk}, but also to encourage you to work on articles or otherwise contribute to the improvement of the encyclopedia. Continuing to focus on Wikilawyering the ban, and advertising for someone to assist you in Wikilawyering the ban, isn't at all what was intended, and only contributes to the perception that you're not really here to work on the encyclopedia at all. I strongly advise you to drop this subject and go edit some articles. If you keep on this track, it is inevitable that someone's going to post a proposal for you to be site banned, and I can't say that they'd be wrong to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are just miffed, because I returned your application.
Seriously though - I'd hoped that the ad for the Wikilawyer would be seen for what it is - self-depreciating humour. Especially with the hidden comment in their about it being humour. Nfitz (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{non-admin comment} I should know better than to stray into such conversations. But, Nfitz, you just don’t get it. Listen to Beyond and the other admins. You were given a courtesy. The trend was clearly in favor of a Tban when closed. The close protected you, as did an early close, during both of which I suggested a close. If you had continued to debate in the same style, IMHO, the sentiment would have eventually turned to a block. If you make the mistake of appealing now, in the same manner, it will probably end in loss of Talk and a block. I don’t know this – just my limited experience.

If you wish to appeal, some advice from a minor editor:

Be succinct. You use far too many words.

An appeal is about you, not other editors. Focus on your actions and how you’ve learned how to change them.

Do not mention flaws in WP policies and procedures. There are times and places. The last place is during an appeal.

Just don’t do it. Don’t appeal for six months. It makes you look like you won’t accept policies or rulings, or are argumentative, or in some sort of hurry to right great wrongs. And it wastes time of volunteers.

Seriously, you are still allowed to edit massive numbers of articles. You can show that you are a contributor. And, best of all, you don’t have to bother with Wikispace, which only masochists like me so imbibe. Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Ken, BTW, isn't an admin. There seems to be an impression here, that I do nothing but hang around WP:ANI, etc. I hadn't touched a topic at ANI for a [fortnight] after getting a very clear demand to do so from an admin. It was my very polite attempt to get a clarification on that (why Civil no longer applies), which basically consisted of a question, a straw-man response a week later, and my attempt to get back to the question. So few edits didn't exactly occupy my time much, as you can see in my contributions over that period. It's the being dragged to ANI that sucks my time - which is why I'm trying to avoid it (hence the desire for clear clarifications). The trend was indeed in favour of topic ban (hence my attempt to make it a bit more relevant and avoid wasting more time on), however given I had followed the unofficial ban since it was given, I think such a wide-ranging restriction is punitive ... and mostly punitive for stuff based on less recent editing, ignoring the successes I've had at moderating behaviour. Do I use a lot of words - perhaps. Perfection eludes me. IF only was a way to tweet everything. Nfitz (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Star Trek: Discovery. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 04:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Discovery

I just want to apologise for my behaviour the other day, it was quite overwhelming the way a whole lot of people suddenly took interest in the article and were making changes left and right. I see now that your behaviour was absolutely fine, and perhaps my judgement of you was clouded by some recent encounters I've had with less-than-friendly editors. I also understand your complaint about the size of the article and the amount of content, and am currently working on a proposal to try and cut that down without losing too much of the content, which I think is all good stuff. I'll be posting over at the talk page when I am ready to make some of those changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Much of the content belongs somewhere. It's a work in progress. Nfitz (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on the Talk page Nfitz. -- 109.76.159.233 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Berean Hunter: Sup? Nfitz hasn't edited in 11 hours. They've been here twelve years and made nearly 10,000 presumably mostly-useful edits. I don't see how WP:NOTHERE can apply. It's not April Fools ;) so was this placed mistakenly for someone else? — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) On October 8, you were editing with your mobile just fine here at 2:31. You intentionally logged out and then filed a frivolous unblock request here as if you couldn't edit. You actually had access through your account and weren't cut off at all but began this lengthy process of wasting admin time. Your device also presented itself with different credentials (you can explain that, also). You really weren't cut off but you are now. If you are willing to pull our chain and gripe about that then I'm willing to show you the door.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: I've split this thread into two pieces for clarity, as they aren't related. I'm a little confused how this is "not here". I simply was reading something on Wikipedia on my mobile, for personal interest, when I realized that the "Inc." bit shouldn't be like that in the lede. I often don't log in for very minor edits (or when editing articles on local organized crime for obvious reason - which I very seldom do, but it might have happened 3-4 times in the last decade). Editing from a mobile is painful enough, without trying to type in a mix of upper case, lower case, numbers and characters on a mobile keypad. If the edit is of any consequence, I usually wait until I'm at a computer, or actually log in. In this case, I discovered I could not edit, which seemed odd. So I logged in, tried again, then logged out to explore what the issue was, and reported the issue, requesting that the IP range be unblocked, as it was clear there was potentially an issue if the primary mobile carrier for a large city was blocked. After that was refused with little explanation, I realized the next day when I returned home that it was much larger than I thought, as it wasn't just one city, but likely the entire region, if not province, so I repeated my request, noting that I could edit over wifi, and the blocked area was even larger than I realized, and asked for clarification how large the block was. When that request was ignored with the same boilerplate, I tried again, noting I wasn't related to the reason the block was put in place (a sockpuppet), and requesting that the block be lifted so I could edit by IP; I know that it's only a 30-day block, but I was concerned it was heading to an indef.

I'm not exactly sure which rule I've broken here. I thought editing without logging in was fine, as long as there was no nefarious purpose - and to be honest I've been doing this for a decade for quite minor edits - did the rules change? But even if I was making minor edits without logging in, I don't see which part of NOTHERE applies. At worst it's a minor unintentional misunderstanding, which surely isn't worth an indef. If I'm not allowed to ever edit without logging in, I can see perhaps why there'd be an issue with an unblock request (which I did by IP, as I didn't really want to out myself - though as I realized the extent of the block, I also realized that I wasn't outing much other than my mobile provider, and once I found out that UTRS can't handle IPv6 blocks, I figured it was easier to simply discuss from my user account. I am having a problem finding the rule that says you must log in to make minor edits. Can someone point me to it? Nfitz (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're a timesink, Nfitz, and have been for months. You seem "not to be exactly sure" about an awful lot of things for someone who has been around for so long. - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you could have edited by simply logging in. Simple. But, you decided to be a pain and try to get yourself the added ability for anon editing despite the fact that admin action was taken to solve a problem with substantially higher priority than that. Since you alluded to knowing about that, I'll let you explain how you see that situation. You also allude to the collateral damage with sweeping statements but I had actually done a proper analysis both before the block and again after the unblock requests started. In practical terms, your broad statements are refuted by the fact that in two weeks time, only two individuals (maybe) had filed for an unblock. I say maybe because that might be you or possibly the person(s) that I intended the block to catch and I'm erring on the side of AGF here. I'm unswayed and you haven't given us a proper assessment so I'll let you do so here. Since you have challenged the rangeblock, tell us about the situation so we can see if you really did weigh one thing against another. Oh, and don't talk about all those other people in the greater Toronto area. If you say that you were doing this for them then that is seriously disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. That is essentially how I see your actions here and it earned you a NOT HERE assessment. You're causing more difficulties and drama with a heat-to-light ratio that is apparent in that lengthy block log of yours and then you pulled this?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could have (and did) edit by logging in; I indicated in the second request that I wasn't having problems using wifi instead of mobile - so I wasn't hiding that. I'd also assumed that given the situation a check user would be done confirming I had logged in from that range - and even the same IP. I did not decide to be a pain - I don't know what leads you to make such statements; in fact I felt I was doing my duty to alert people to the extent of the situation. It seemed to me that there was a lack of understanding of just how massive the range block was (even on my part, as I first thought it was only the largest mobile proivder of a large city, rather than an entire metropolis if not province).

I haven't looked closely at the sock in question. I simply after my first request looked at their edit history Special:Contributions/Cebr1979 to observe that they primarily edit in the area of American soap operas (an area I'd be surprised if I've ever even had a minor edit), and briefly at Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 to observe that at least one other user had also had an issue, and that there seemed to be several different editors a week using this IP outside of the area of American soap operas - providing confirmation that this was having significant collateral damage, and that I couldn't see any immediate evidence of any damage (or even soap opera edits on the first page). I don't see how this request is disrupting Wikipedia. Nor do I see this as being pointy; I didn't really want to out myself (though once I realised the extent of the block I was less concerned - I think it's pretty clear from my edit history that I'm in the GTA), and with the block in place, I couldn't pop into your talk page, or even the location of a previous discussion to express my concerns. Perhaps I should have just dropped you a message from anywhere I landed. I'm honestly still unclear on what rule I've violated here. Reading WP:SOCK just now (which, not having any interest in being a sock, I haven't read for years) I don't see a restriction on using an IP to edit - in fact, WP:LOGOUT and WP:LOGGEDOUT say the opposite.

I have absolutely no relation with the sockpupet behind this. Can I ask you to run a checkuser on me to compare to them, to confirm that. Other than us both being in the same country of 35 million and sharing the same mobile provider (which has 10 million clients), you won't find any overlap. No need to disclose the conclusion. I've nothing to hide from a check user. I've also no relation with User talk:2605:8D80:5A3:4E6F:F077:65CE:6672:4992 who made a similar request on the morning of October 1; if I could figure out how to pull hourly mobile data usage from my phone or Rogers account on that day, it would show no activity until late afternoon - I was likely still asleep at that hour (I've previously disclosed my insomnia issues and current bizarre sleep cycle).

I think there's been a misunderstanding here on my motives, which were only for the best interest of the project. Primarily I was concerned about the future annoyance of having to log in from my mobile anytime I tried a small edit (in reality, I'd probably just not bother, or save the password, which I try and avoid on my mobile in case of someone else accessing it), and secondarily, I could see a lot of really useful edits coming out from what appeared to be many users in this large range, that we lose, if we stop IP editing. If the IP block is really necessary, can't it be targeted closer to what region(s), cell tower(s) that the sock uses? I quite ignorant of how IPv6 works, so I don't now how feasible/difficult this is. Can you please remove this indef. I won't edit outside my Userspace until User:KrakatoaKatie can sort out the ramnifications of my talkspace violation below?, Thanks Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping User:Berean Hunter Nfitz (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. What did the UTRS admins tell you? What advice did you receive?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never managed to complete a UTRS request, as it wouldn't accept it; I'd emailed utrs-admins@googlegroups.com about it reporting that my IPv4 wasn't blocked, when I had an IPv6. The exchange was:

Subject: UTRS for blocked range
Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM

In Wikipedia it seems the range of my mobile was blocked a couple of weeks ago due to sock activity. I discovered this Saturday. My IP seems to change every time the mobile reconnects. Currently it is 2605:8D80:684:76DD:5419:F416:19:6A96 and the range block is 2605:8d80::/32 

Seems simple enough but after several attempt, hard booting my phone and sipping¹ my cookies, the UTRS report system https://utrs.wmflabs.org/index.php thinks my IP is 24.114.56.245 and won't let me submit a block because that isn't blocked.

Not sure how to proceed. (Tried talk page - but they blocked that for ... actually couldn't figure out why).

User:nfitz

¹ - a typo, should be zapping

The response from User:Salvidrim was:

Subject: Re: [UTRS Admin] Re: UTRS for blocked range
Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:51 PM
Hi,

The reason you were unable to file a UTRS appeal is that the IP block preventing you from editing is an IPv6 block, which is not yet detectable by the framework on which the UTRS tool operates. 

The rangeblock applied on this IPv6 range has been implemented due to a high amount of disruption to Wikipedia emanating from it. The rangeblock only applies to unregistered editing (meaning, editing without a registered account), thus if you login to your User:Nfitz Wikipedia account you should be able to edit without issue. 

Thank you for your cooperation,

Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know about the UTRS info. The part that I was looking for is "The rangeblock only applies to unregistered editing (meaning, editing without a registered account), thus if you login to your User:Nfitz Wikipedia account you should be able to edit without issue." I wanted to make sure that you understood that. There really wasn't a problem. You write above, "I'd emailed utrs-admins@googlegroups.com about it reporting that my IPv4 wasn't blocked, when I had an IPv6". I don't see that portion in red above. Where is that about revealing that your IPv4 wasn't blocked?

"Your device also presented itself with different credentials (you can explain that, also)."

Sorry, I wasn't clear. At the time I tried to submit the UTRS request on Tuesday, Wikipedia was saying my IP was an IPv6 2605:8D80:684:76DD:5419:F416:19:6A96. However UTRS wouldn't submit, with an error message There were errors processing your unblock appeal: Your IP Address (24.114.56.245) is not currently blocked. Is it your account that is blocked?. I don't understand the intricacies of this - I've actually got print-screens on my mobile of the two messages from Tuesday (the UTRS error message and a Wikipedia result from pressing contributions not logged in) as it seemed very bizarre to me - I can provide this if of any assistance. Hmm, I can replicate it too - though currently the UTRS rejects the request from IP 24.114.68.116 and Wiki thinks the mobile is 2605:8D80:6A5:FB5:CFDD:AF75:A3AE:64BE. Nfitz (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The device that you were using when you made this edit is your mobile and tagged that way publicly. What kind of device, operating system and browser were you using when you made the unblock request? Please be clear on this.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two edits on Saturday October 7 at 22:31 and 22:36 North American Eastern Daylight? That's easy. I was out of Toronto, at the other end of Mississauga, over at my father-in-laws (who has no wifi), and the only device available to me was my mobile (which is how I noticed the block - I don't normally edit from my mobile, but the kids were watching a movie, and I was bored, with no other device). So they are both coming from a Blackberry Keyone (model BBB100-1) Android Nougat 7.1.1 Build NMF26F Monthly patch AAO472 (Sept 2017). Browser is the built-in Chrome. However, if I remember correctly, the first one was using it in default mode, which defaults to visual editing; while the second one was with "Request desktop site" on, which defaults to source editing. Hmm - one doesn't have a mobile flag, I should be able to replicate that. I've confirmed the date/time in my Google location, so there's no chance I've got the day wrong, and there simply isn't any other device over there I've ever used in over a decade - so there's no chance I've made a mistake on that. I can provide Google Location information, current phone book information (for both myself and father-in-law), and my marriage certificate if that helps (he was the minister and shares my wife's surname). Hmm, and now I think about it, I see both in my mobile's browser history that evening; I could provide that if I could figure out how to extract it - there's a lot of crap - I was bored. Nfitz (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, replicated. See preceeding 3 edits, at UTC 06:09, 06:13, and 06:21, all from the mobile, in different modes. Then, the 4th attempt was blocked because my IP was blocked as noted below - I assume there's a bug in that somewhere. But as you can see, when I edit en.wikipedia.* in desktop mode (rather than en.m.wikipedia.*), there is no mobile flag being attached. This is the "Request desktop site" checkbox in chrome (61.0.3163.98) for android as documented on http://www.techbout.com/request-desktop-version-website-android-phone-17720/ Nfitz (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS Sorry about creating all this mess. I thought (and still do think) that I was allowed to do inconsequential edits as IP. And I thought I was allowed to request my IP be unblocked as an IP (to maintain my anonymity) - and presumably this is where I have erred? Nfitz (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage certificate? No, you had better keep that or being blocked on Wikipedia will be the least of your worries and you would have someone of greater authority to answer to.

Thank you. I'm satisfied with the question concerning the device identity. Your mobile presented itself as a Linux desktop in that short couple of minutes and I was wanting to make sure that you weren't spoofing useragents. The checkuser concern here was an issue that I wanted to get cleared up but not the reason why you were blocked. Since you had been editing with no problem while logged in, that is the simple solution to your perceived problem. You decided to file an unblock request after logging out and then proceeded to crusade about all of this perceived collateral damage that in actuality doesn't exist other than you, the person that I blocked and maybe one other. You were told by the UTRS admin how to avoid the problem but for some reason, that wasn't good enough and you wanted to argue irrationally. I looked at your talk page, block log (much of which is quite recent) and some of the threads and decided that few people are this obtuse without it being trolling or possibly something else that I can't explain. I believe that your actions are either insincere or another problem exists such that you are having a negative net effect on the project. I found your unblock requests and the way that you went about everything to be wasting our time. This is also what other editors have told you.

Alex Shih has made you the kind offer to advocate for your position at AN for an unblock request and I am happy to have this situation reviewed there. Whatever the community decides is fine with me and if they decide so, I'll lift the block myself.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad I don't have to sacrifice my life partner! Yeah, I realize the checkuser was just a red herring. Glad we cleared that up though. Quite frankly, I don't even know what spoofing useragents are. It's pretty dull, but I don't play any games like that; nor are my motives anything near what is described. Sometimes I'm guilty of a snide comment - but I also apologize ... and when I have really done something wrong. I have no hesitation in admitting it. I am stubborn though; but I'm usually right ... but if I'm stubborn and wrong - well it's isn't pretty. Though even then, once I see it, I'll turn around and argue the other side in the future. Sometimes I'm too honest. If I don't understand what I did wrong, I'd be better off, I think, to simply say I won't do it again and move on. That seems to be the expectation. Not sure when that became okay (and I have actually terminated someone who worked that way in the real world - albeit reluctantly, after a couple of years, with multiple attempts to try and redirect their career to something that would be a better fit to their skills); if I don't understand where I went wrong, I simply want to find out what I've misunderstood, so that I don't repeat the error; for some reason that I haven't figured out, that seems to rub people the wrong way.

I still see significant evidence of collateral damage; not so much since the block (with myself, and the other user - who could easily be the sockpuppet. But in examining the pre-block edits with this range; yes some are possibly the sock; but many if not most are valid edits, that don't fit the sock profile; with some significant contributions. This was my motive in outing myself as a Rogers mobile user. I felt that the collateral damage has been overlooked. I fear that losing editors who may not want to have an account ultimately weakens Wikipedia. However, we don't have to solve this problem here; it's merely my motive. In retrospect, I wish I'd simply raised it as myself, rather than through the IP - which I honestly thought was perfectly acceptable. Though I think the talk page block might have taken things too far (at least when UTRS is not an option until it's upgraded to handle IPv6).

You see me as having an irrational motive of disruption. Often lately I seem to be subscribed some rather out there motives, that takes a bit of a leap to think that a 12-year veteran has suddenly gone off the deep end. Virtually everything (hey, no one's perfect) I've done has been with the best of intentions (even when I was completely wrong). The only two blocks I've had, where I'd actually done what I was accused of (or at least had the motives that were ascribed to me) were Swarm's blocks of August 8 and 9th this year (though I've forgotten the circumstances of the March 2008 block). And yes, I screwed up colossally there - I completely screwed up the interpretation of BLP; and I was a bit arrogant while getting there. But I did figure out where I'd gone wrong, and not repeated it. If you look at my actions - especially since the second Swarm block - and perhaps before July 1, 2017, and look at my actions and motives, assuming good faith, then I think a reasonable person will find every intent of trying to improve and aid the project; not disrupt it. (and even at my worst, it was never an attempt to disrupt the project - but I could have found a better way to tackle it.

I appreciate, and might well take up User:Alex Shih's offer; though I'm unaware of it. I realize there was a discussion going on somewhere else - though I haven't seen it recently. I seem to have made some non-admin enemies, who appear to be on a vendetta; ironically as far as I can tell, because they reject my premise, that WP:CIVIL is actually very important. Really not sure how to handle such things, as I see so much deliberate sowing of seeds of doubt, with half-truths, trumped up comments. Originally I tried to tackle the aspersions head on, but somehow that seemed to simply derail a normal conversation, making me look very argumentative. Then I simply tried ignoring it, and then everyone seemed to start believing these aspersions, even with no evidence. It seemed to be starting again over in that discussion, and I felt it was just better to not read it.

My concern in taking the whole thing to AN or ANI, is those that sit there ready to judge - well, I'm concerned that they don't enter with an open mind; having already decided that I'm disruptive - when this is the last thing in the world I want to be. That, and someone seems to have given the peanut gallery knives instead of peanuts. I realize that I may not have a choice but to be thrown to the lions. Though I'd think the block would/should be lifted as nothere, and reimposed as something else.

This is such a time-sink; and my life is very busy right now in the real world. All I really want to do, is quietly go back to a peaceful existence, where I edit occasionally; sometimes disappear for a while. And have a burst of activity, when there is more time in my life, or something of particular interest. Other than some long-solved philosophical difference on AFD/Prod issues, there's little in that life that has created much issue.

The first step though, as I understand it, is to deal with my topic ban violation; where I'd simply recommend a severe warning, given there was no intent or malice, and the edits to 3 AFDs weren't of the type that had created any concern; they were really quite mundane and ordinary. I have no problem admitting that I was acting like a complete senile idiot there (I'm not suffering from any such affliction BTW, not in any chronic form at least.) Though frankly I'd prefer if we simply stay the entire process, return to the status at the beginning of October, and defer discussion until such time that I'm allowed to request that the topic ban be lifted. Having gone 9 years in the past without a block (a feat that some admins have never achieved!), you'd think that I should statistically be able to stay out of trouble for 6 months. Then we can all spend more time editing articles - or at least sleeping.Nfitz (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nfitz, ive not wanted to get involved in this latest issue while other admins have been dealing with it, but I fundamentally disagree with your proposal. You were given a serious censure when you were given your topic ban, a censure which you have violated on several occasions for no clear reason. Simply saying you forgot is not an acceptable reason and your actions have undermined the authority of those who imposed the topic ban, as it was clearly stated you would be blocked if you violated it. On several occasions in recent months hours and hours of people's time and thousands of words have been wasted trying to deal with this which could have been spent building an encyclopedia. To my mind the following needs to happen:

You need to remain blocked for your own good and take time to seriously reflect on the massive amount of drama you have created recently and how this has really been building over a long period of time. Whether or not this is a nothere block is not really relevant
After six months or so you should make an unblock request through the usual channels. You make positive contributions, so I am sure a properly worded request would be successful
The topic ban remain in place and would not be lifted until at least another six months after this as it's not really been working so far.

Either way, any change to the current situation definitely needs to go to AN/I for wider consensus. Fenix down (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fenix down On one hand, I can see where you are coming from. However, I'm not sure why you said I violated it on several occasions. A check of my edit history, shows only three edits in WP namespace (and none in WT namespace), with two of those edits being consecutive and only 2 minutes apart; and the third on a different day, being only after one interceding edit. At most that's two occasions (and 3 very mundane edits). If you look at the edit times, what is apparent is both were at 5 AMish local time, while I was suffering from insomnia (because trust me - I'm just not conscious at that hour otherwise). (I'm only just noticing this now). (perhaps irrelevant, but the good news is the cause of the insomnia has been diagnosed, and treatment is improving the situation - turns out that this (and pretty much every other medical issue I've reported in the last decade, other than my knees) is the result of sleep apnea. As I'm already at a loss for an explanation of why I suddenly forgot that I can't participate at AFD, I can only theorize that under severe sleep deprivation that there is a significant loss of judgement. I'm not sure if I should be upset that I may have some cognitive issues at times, or relieved that the explanation isn't some dreadful mind-wasting disease, but something that's very curable. Please bear with me, as this discussion goes sideways - I'm literally only just realising the implications of those edit times - you have no idea how difficult a process this is for me, both here, personally, and professionally).

I very much want to avoid wasting everyone's time, and going through a long-drawn out AN/I and potentially Arbcom process. And I'm being as transparent as possible to avoid this spiralling even further (even though I know there are some non-Admin's out there that will quick to use any admission of weakness or medical issues, as a weapon in any future discussions). Should I be blocked at 5 AM - maybe - though those days have dropped from daily to once a week currently.) Should I be blocked most of the time - no.

At the same time, I do want to avoid an AN/I process, that will may get into competence, medical issues, and WP:NDP. I have no idea where Wiki policy is on this, but in any real world process, this would be done in-camera. Personally, I'd prefer that a reasonable (but hopefully) brief discussion be held publicly here.

Say, there's no way to block based on time of day is there? The way that many corporate networks can block what time one can login?

If there was ongoing (or heck any) damage to mainspace, I can see the rational about a continuing complete block (or ban). I don't see any significant disruption either; the 3 AFD edits were nothing of the sort (2 were with consensus, and the 3rd was a mundane minority view). Even the request to lift, or alert to the significance of, the very large range block, only uses limited time compared to a complex AN/I case; I could argue (though I don't really want to) that the first two responses to the block request were so far off-base and irrelevant that they themselves may be considered disruptive. (I note that admin has ignored multiple polite requests to account for their comments). Nfitz (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I note that admin has ignored multiple polite requests to account for their comments"...next time that I see a comment like that which really shows that you don't get how much time you waste, I'll be filing in my choice of words at AN. We're done accounting to YOU. We don't need to satisfy any more time wasting requests. You seem to not get it..I'm considering whether I want to file at AN or revoke your talk page access and put this out of its misery.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Berean Hunter. I feel discouraged to even file a block review discussion anymore. Nfitz, please just take a break from English Wikipedia for a while, and maybe file an AN review request after a month or so. Alex Shih ^Talk 04:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User:Alex Shih, I got caught in an edit conflict with you; and that's not pretty on a mobile with borderline reception and a 275 kB page (remind me to archive). Finally went outside to get better reception, and recovered my text after about 20 minutes. But I think this restores your edit. I'm sorry you feel this way; I was hoping to simply save you the trouble of being involved with what I'd proposed below. Why am I editing on mobile one might ask? Because it was a simple edit, I could avoid the autoblock without using my dinosaur personal PC, and I started writing it lying in the bedroom with the kids as they went to sleep. Sorry for TMI, I'm getting paranoid about people questioning all the deets. :) Nfitz (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break

Can everyone just take a step back and discuss like people just talking? Myself included? I'll try to be brief here.

In the real world, I'm a reasonable, responsible, pragmatic person. I don't want to waste anyone's time. Which is why I want to avoid the drama boards and offered proposals just to end this and move on. Can we just skip ahead and talk about outcomes?

If we can just discuss the future and can come to a mutually agreeable outcome, then we can save many more people wasted time at AN, and possible appeals, and I'll commit not to appeal outside of what we might agree (presumably we include a mechanism to progressively lift restrictions). I assume that User:Berean Hunter,User:KrakatoaKatie, and myself are the three parties that would have to agree to the final conditions if we are to avoid AN.

I propose that the outcome is a conditional unblock, incorporating the existing topic ban, and other new conditions. One of those conditions perhaps being that I don't request any IP unblocks; in the unlikely event that I have any concerns I simple talk to the blocking admin. Nfitz (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. You still are not getting it. Practically, everything you write here is a lengthy screed of excuses and irrelevant asides. Take some time off, see if you can get the insomnia sorted out now that you have a diagnosis, and then perhaps ask for a review somewhere down the line, as umpteen admins have noted above. This is not the time. - Sitush (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another condition could be dispute resolution or an interaction ban with the above user, who I've barely ever interacted with, but lately seems to appear unbidden whenever there's an opportunity to criticize me. Nfitz (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What difference would that make? You got blocked this time without any involvement from me. You broke your topic ban without any involvement from me. Your original problems, going back months, were without any involvement from me. Your ongoing whinging is mostly without any involvement from me. And I'm on record as being sympathetic to the insomnia issue. - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Sitush, this is not an interaction issue in any way. To be Frank, if we had not had the rather lengthy interaction we have had over a large number of AfDs I would have imposed the same block. Your issues in real life are not going to be solved by editing Wikipedia. On the contrary, your issues on Wikipedia seem to be a direct result of your real life issues. Please take this advice in the friendly way it is intended: take a break, get yourself any real life help you need, that is what is really important. Spend that break reading and rereading this talk page, all the issues that you need to accept are causing significant disruption are listed here. Reflect on them, get your self better. Wait a few months and then do the necessary regarding the standard offer and you shouldn't have any problems getting back to normal editing. Fenix down (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFD edits

KrakatoaKatie, I also see the ban on editing WP namespace and have read the thread further up the page. I've already blocked this editor so I will let you be the judge of these edits to that namespace and whether they would constitute violations of that topic ban. Thank you,
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's 100% a violation of the topic ban. I'm guilty as charged. I've no defence, and the only explanation I have, I don't think anyone will believe - I'm not sure I'd believe it myself. For some reason after a few weeks, I forgot the topic ban included AFD; which honestly make no sense to me as I'd been very carefully working in the shadows, improving articles and adding references to football articles at AFD, examples is here. There had however been precious little at AFD that I disagreed with until very recently; somehow it blanked from my mind that it applied to AFD. Which even I find a bit troubling. All I can do is apologize profusely, and promise not to repeat it. (and maybe get more sleep!) Nfitz (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry that I didn't get the ping - it's not listed anywhere in my notifications. Absolute violation of the topic ban. Katie^talk 19:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:KrakatoaKatie Yes, as I mentioned above, I clearly violated the topic ban. No malice, no intent, and no damage - but a 100% clear violation. Even I can't explain what I was thinking. I just wasn't. So where do we go from here? Completely stupid of me. Nfitz (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS. Is there a way I can just be automatically locked from the WP namespace (and the WT namespace), just so I don't do anything stupid? I almost goofed a couple of weeks ago, when I clicked on something to comment in Main Talk space, which had had a redirect into WT space, and was half-way through writing something when I realised that I had entered the forbidden zone, and stopped. Nfitz (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

User:Alex Shih everyone else involved in this, uh, incident seems absent currently. Can you lift the Autoblock, as currently it's showing the Work IP number and my user name to everyone who tries to edit in a large corporation (or at least a significant part of it). Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or anyone! Though, now I'm physically in the office it hasn't cascaded as far as it did last time yet, as I only logged in externally. Presumably it won't cascade internally if I don't log into Wiki. But external still an issue. Nfitz (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nfitz. Request seen, and, unfortunately, declined. As evidenced above, during the last block, you contacted the oversight team with the allegation of being "outed" by the autoblock. They replied by telling you that you were not outed. I also explained to you in more detail why your concern regarding the autoblock "outing" you was not legitimate. I will repost the relevant quotes for you:
Autoblocks are, by default, automatic for any and all blocks. We don't just block an account, the related IPs (all of which are logged) are blocked as well, obviously, to prevent block evasion. You are as responsible for the autoblock as you are for the block on your account. ... Outing is the exposure of a user's identity or personal information on Wikipedia. That simply didn't happen. No personal information of yours was divulged by the autoblock, period. In fact, if you click that first link, this very scenario is provided as an example of how an autoblock would typically work (i.e. a user's work IP being autoblocked and a coworker discovering the block). ... If one of your coworkers was caught up in the autoblock, they would not know anything about the owner of the blocked account...without you having willfully revealed your own personal information. In other words, your coworkers would not know it was you unless you already outed yourself.
So, this was already explained to you, remember? The autoblock was lifted the first time because you were hysterically claiming that you did not understand the consequences of logging in at your workplace while blocked. You will not be able to use that excuse again, as you should very well know how autoblocks work by now, and you've had two months since then to remove personal information, change your username, or create a new account, if you wished. If you haven't done so, that would obviously constitute a willingness to maintain your real life identity on Wikipedia, so you can't suddenly flip and tell us again that it's an emergency that requires the autoblock to be lifted. I tried to dissuade you from the impression that this is a reasonable request to make. It's a very extraordinary request. We simply do not lift autoblocks upon request. In fact, we virtually never disable them. I advise you to focus on the actual block, rather than to waste your time trying to get the autoblock lifted. It's most likely not going to happen a second time. I won't be otherwise involving myself in your present situation. Best, Swarm ♠ 01:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swarm is it necessary to be so condescending when you write - there are extra words in what you write, that only have the intent of belittling me. Why do you add these extra words? I've been nothing but civil, and I deserve respect here in this process, which is no kettle of fish from this end. I have no idea how I'm supposed to roll back 11 years of edits, and get a new account, especially while under a topic ban. Besides, autoblocks are not always applied; that's quite clear from my own block history - however, I'd no idea how commonly or not they are applied I think we all know by now that I'm not going to evade a block - especially while trying to clean up the mess. Meanwhile, I've figured out how to avoid triggering the autoblock other than on my own IPs - which would achieve the required anonymity. Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you took my message personally. I truly didn't intend to be uncivil in any way, and I have absolutely nothing against you. I was literally just trying to get the message across as clearly and unequivocally as possible, so that you would understand. Swarm ♠ 17:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate that. Perhaps part of my problem is when I perceive incivility without cause I just assume that whatever else is being said is very questionable. Hmm, which ironically makes me prejudiced ... I'll have to ponder that. Message received though. I remain concerned about the potential outing aspect (more so of others than me at this stage) Many years ago I would have chosen a different userid had I knew how the world and Internet would change. And my private email address wouldn't been plastered all over the Internet a decade or more earlier. But no one had private Usenet IDs or personas back then. I guess AOL getting Internet access did spoil everything! When I look around my workplace, there's only one other person who's even old enough, or immigrated here more than a couple of years ago, to have a 12-year old account. Time itself has pretty much outed me no matter what name I pick! But that's nothing we need to discuss here. Now I fully grasp how this thing is working, I can work with it - even if I have some philosophical concerns. Nfitz (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

Nfitz, I've dropped a note at User talk:Berean Hunter#About Nfitz about your situation yesterday. Just make sure you answer the latest question from Berean Hunter as clearly as possible, and then we can move on to maybe open a thread at WP:AN to discuss how to move forward with your account. The more I read about how the situation unfolded the more upset I feel; I feel tired, and sad. Maybe this is a case of WP:THERAPY, I don't know. Like Swarm said, lifting the autoblock last time was an extraordinary exception. Anyway, take care. Alex Shih ^Talk 02:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hadn't realized that autoblock lifts were non-routine given they haven't always been applied in past. BTW I just added and deleted two comments as I'd forgot to log in (and ironically outed myself in the process, sigh). I was trying to quickly restore, but now an ec. And I have real-world commitments. I'll restore comments and answer Berean Hunter comments when I get a chance. Though I think the answer is all my edits as a Rogers IP are using an Android BlackBerry Keyone running nougat. But let me check that; we had a power failure here on Sunday and I was running a PC using the mobile as a hotspot - which I haven't done for months (but might do later so as not to autoblock various corporate IPs). Nfitz (talk) 02:58 18 October 2017 (UTC)

ah, power failure was a red herring - now that I read in detail, the two edits in question were within minutes while I was away from home right at the beginning of this. Also I've (now) realised, the hotspot is also a red herring, as the annoying locked down proxy on my computer actually kicks back in after a few minutes running through the hotspot - so it would never actually show the same IP as the mobile (and yes, that means I've triggered the autoblock again). I wish this hell would end - I honestly thought reporting the IP block issue was a good thing and in everyone's best interest, given collateral damage. WP:THERAPY seems to refer to disruption. After I noticed that the IP block extended beyond Mississauga, I repeated the request, because I was trying to stop what appears to be massive collateral damage. Then after the talk page access was blocked, I dug through the edit history, and I could see that there was almost daily use of this IP range by many different people (as far as I could see from the many different topic areas) - which isn't surprising given the block covers the entire mobile network of the largest mobile provider in the nation, in the most populated part of the nation. Realizing that my anonymity concerns were minor in comparison, I felt exposing my user id was minor compared to the collateral damage. I honestly thought that I did nothing wrong, and was actually trying to remove a large disruption. To be honest, I still can't see what rule I broke in all this. I've been trying to keep a low profile, stay out of trouble, etc. Nfitz (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Test edit from mobile

Edit from mobile of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nfitz&action=edit using chrome "desktop mode" and Source editor Nfitz (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nfitz&action=edit using chrome "desktop mode" and Source editor Nfitz (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nfitz using chrome default (not desktop mode) and visual editor Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(an attempted fourth edit failed, as then I clicked on "read as wiki page", cliked the visual edit icon, and got an error message that my IP was blocked from editing ... which makes no sense to me) Nfitz (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush

User:Sitush, I have no idea what your issue is with me in particular, given I've been very complementary about your editing in difficult and contentious areas - and I clearly stated there was no anti-Semitism behind the AFD that apparently has lead to your dislike of me, and any appearance of such was just coincidental; my only comment at that AFD supported you. Though as you can see by my post-AFD research and edits at Rose Van Thyn I'd have ultimately gone with keep - and perhaps you would too had anyone brought the sources from across Louisiana I added later to light.(I agree that there was not enough originally in the article to support keep, and the use of not widely available research tools was necessary to come up with such evidence - which is why I didn't opine one way or another during the AFD itself) As I feel no hostility against you, I'd sooner simply sort out with you what this issue is (beyond your thoughts about my general competence - it seems a lot more personal than that). I'm open to simply discussing, or some dispute resolution process - at some future time when, I've served whatever punitive measures are coming. In the meantime though, I'd appreciate if you don't comment on my mostly resolved medical condition; it's somewhat of a sensitive topic. IDHT BTW doesn't apply, given I'm committing to not do what lead to this block, and I'm not even defending it at this point; everyone is now aware of the collateral damage, and if they aren't bothered with it, I saw no need to pursue it further, in the interest of maintaining consensus. Nfitz (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't know how I've offended you.

- I'd be happy to pursue DR or something later to resolve.

- I love you.

- IDHT doesn't apply. Unconditionally committing not to repeat what lead to this block. Nfitz (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

I have revoked talk page access as this talk page is currently not being used in a constructive manner toward filing an unblock request. Any unblock request from now should be submitted through Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System as usual. For the sake of transparency, I am in the process of discussing this account with the user through e-mail. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 07:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #19550 was submitted on Oct 20, 2017 09:56:04. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #19578 was submitted on Oct 22, 2017 17:17:59. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access temporarily restored

I've temporarily restored your talk page access to enable you to contribute to the WP:AN discussion that is reviewing your block. If you place any comments you wish to make here, I (or someone else) will copy them over for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Boing! said Zebedee. Having seen the comments at AN (which is a mortifying and humiliating experience), there are some that are true, a couple I think are not, some that raise issues dealt with years ago, and some that are out of context or ignore the subsequent penalty. And yes, some that are eye-opening. Seems to be some axe-grinding as well.
I'm contemplating the best way to handle with brevity. A short essay? Some bullets to question some individual comments? Is there a good past example of this to emulate?
I've pondered if writing a NPOV timeline (without trying to explain anything) of the events that lead here might help make this ... nightmare .... more accessible (heck, even I scratch my head how things escalated so quickly from a relatively mundane AFD of a holocaust educator to a topic ban 2 weeks later). It could simply live in my talk page for those that choose to reference it. On other hand, making the entire drama more accessible might be the final nail in my coffin. Maybe a Coles Notes isn't in my best interest. :)
(I'm not meaning for this to be copied to AN) Nfitz (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to be copied to AN

In view of expediency, as I won't be able to fully edit for near 24 hours (so that I don't autoblock my workplace), here's some points. I assume someone will activate the tags.

User:Number_57 discusses problems with me at AFD; but doesn't mention that this was resolved years ago and more recent complaints about my Prod removals was resolved by an agreement I made in Spring 2014 to be more discerning about my PROD removals.

User:Dennis_Brown, I was never feigning ignorance on BLP. Don't mistake stubbornness and stupidity for cunning. But even I'm not stupid enough to feign something until I'm doing unblock requests on an indef!

User:Sitush refers to medical issues. It's hard to assess one's own condition, it's possible that circumstances have arisen where it's more difficult to bite my tongue when I see things that bother me; and I've never had much tact. As I stated earlier, I had no intention of violating the topic ban, and after working carefully to avoid WP, I suddenly on two occasions in three 5 AM edits forgot I couldn't comment at AFD. While this initially greatly troubled me that I could be so stupid, once I realised the timing, I can only assume that sleep deprivation significantly clouded my judgement. I'm guilty as charged, but there was not intent, or even awareness (though I remember doing the edits). I was as shocked as anyone when I read Berean Hunter's post; perhaps more shocked. I appreciate Sitush's understanding at least - though I'm still not sure what this Weller incident was.

User:Beyond My Ken made good work out of talking to User:prokaryotes including the stat that 33% of my edits were in Wiki space. But he forgot to mention that most of them are at AFD, mostly for articles in the football area, where I've been contributing for a decade, trying to rescue and reference articles for borderline notable subjects. I wasn't aware that this could be used against me!

User SpacemanSpiff said I repeatedly asked that CU evidence be made public; I don't believe have never done that, let alone repeatedly. Is there a diff to support this - if it's what I think it may be, it was about IP information already public? Spiff also notes that the IP block requests were deceptive; how? (see below) and if I thought I was being deceptive, I'd have never edited from my own username and said that I had done the 3 requests! Also, there was no wilful tban evasion; I've explained the accidental edits a few times now. Spiff doesn't see my understanding of the errors - though I thought the BLP screwup I'd been very clear about along with the Tban error. And my admission that my ANI contributions were often poor. I'll admit I never understood the NotHere block (how is asking for an IP block to be lifted so it's easier for me to make quick minor mainspace edits and typo fixes from my mobile not here? Seems like DoublePlusHere to me.)

I'm troubled - there seems to be consensus that the block I'm currently under shouldn't have been NotHere. What is it then? What policy did I violate with the IP unblock requests that deserved an indef, with no questions asked? They weren't repetitive (despite claims to the opposite when IP talk page access was pulled). They weren't deceptive (I'd even indicated in the second one I had other ways of editing). Making minor inconsequential edits by IP is allowed. So why? Yes, I screwed up BLP, got an indef for that, sorted out the issues, and haven't repeated them. Yes, I had verbosive and excessive ANI contributions - which is why I have a topic ban. The only other issue that's come up with most editors is the tban violation; isn't a warning normally customary for a first-time accidental violation 6 weeks later? Those AFD edits were dumber than fuck - what can I say? I'm sorry.

Yes, I've made some screw-ups and I apologize for wasting anyone's time. I'll expand on that later. It's late and I need sleep, so I should stop here. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied over those tweaks and typo fixes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your idea of some brief comments (I think this is what you mean by "In view of expediency") that you will expand on later, then it seems you are not hearing what people are saying to you. GoldenRing (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User:GoldenRing. What I was going to expand on later was just "Yes, I've made some screw-ups and I apologize for wasting anyone's time." - though that mostly can already be found in the two UTRS Unblock requests. By "In view of expediency" I meant "to speed things up" (rather than waiting for recommendations on how respond).
The main two reasons of my post was to simply point out some comments that were not true or misleading, and ask what the block justification was for, if it's not NotHere. I had no intention of addressing the comments again. Still confused by the actual justification for this block if it's not NotHere.
I'm trying to hear what people are saying, though some of it is painful to hear. I just want to quietly go back to mundane editing. Nfitz (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respone to Swarm

(can someone post this after Swarm's AN commment)

I think there's some exaggeration in User:Swarm's comment and a bit of a black and white view. Unhinged? No tantrum. Most significantly I did not immediately violate the topic ban. There was over was over a month between the topic ban, and my accidental violation of it. During that month I count over 100 mainspace edits, in a great variety of articles. Other than my horrendous stupid mistake with those AFD edits I've been trying hard to follow the ban.

Yes, I've made some mistakes and screw-ups. However I've consistently shown that I can learn from my mistakes, and I've committed not to repeat them. I've apologized for the violations. I don't see what's to be gained from turning the topic ban into a block. It's not preventing damage to the encylopaedia, and seems mostly punitive.

What's the normal penalty for an accidental first-time topic ban violation after one month that did no damage? Digging through the archives it seems to be a warning - and not even (through sometimes) a 24-hour block. Nfitz (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to AN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial edit

Can one of my watchers look at this edit and revert if appropriate? Looks like vandalism to me, but it's been there 5 days now. Nfitz (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block endorsed

I've closed the block review at AN with the result that your block is endorsed. I'll note that your talk page access was temporarily restored so that you could respond to concerns raised at the block review. The standard offer was brought up several times, and, to facilitate that, I'm not personally going to revoke your talk page access. However, I've left it open to other administrators to decide if they feel it necessary to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... thanks? Hang on though User:NinjaRobotPirate, seems to be consensus for a block, but are you actually endorsing it as NotHere? No one spoke in favour of that aspect, and some said it wasn't NotHere. Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some people said it didn't apply. Others expressed at least some degree of support for it ("That would be consistent with the block rationale, that their motives are not in line with our objectives and their presence is a distraction for good faith editors", "...so NOTHERE is in my mind partly true"). However, I don't really see how the exact wording in your block rationale really matters. The point is that the block was endorsed. My advice is show the community that you can let the little things go without arguing about them for week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though that comment was related to the earlier block. On one hand it doesn't matter, but on the other hand, I see no blockable issues since the topic ban was issued 2 months ago except the accidental topic ban violation that only came to light later - and an indef for a first-time accidental and harmless TB violations is out of line with the normal approach. No one answered the question I raised about which policy the IP unblock request violated. But you are correct - probably doesn't really make a difference and I shall take solace in Begoon's comment. On the other hand, the AN discussion does say that to get the block lifted the editor needs to understand "the block reason and is ready to correct the behaviour". Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the AN discussion is here Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey user 206.253.140.76 - about that vandalism clean-up

Thanks User:206.253.140.76 for removing the vandalism by User:96.49.108.32 in 2018 CONCACAF Champions League, but you need to remove the match-up between those two teams as well, who can't even meet in the first round. Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disable Wikipedia:Unified login

To the page watchers out there - I've been through the instructions, and I can't see how to disable the Wikipedia:Unified login. It's a pain in the butt when you are working on a different Wikipedia project, and you accidentally end up logged in, at the English Wikipedia, and block one of the corporate IP numbers. The unified login is great, but the automatic login to any project you touch, once you are logged into one is annoying. I assume there's a flag somewhere. (alternatively, lifting the autoblock would solve this as well - do we really think I'm at risk of IP hopping? Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this page

Regarding this, the reason was in my edit summary. You can only use this page to request an unblock. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request have to deal with the reason you were blocked. Jotting down planned future edits is not a reason. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, you are wrong. Talk pages can also be used to clarify the reasons for a block along with showing their understanding and ability to act responsibly. In addition, it's been recommended in the past that blocked users are likely to reduce their block time by explaining some of the good, helpful things you plan to do for Wikipedia as soon as you're unblocked. Can you explain how that works inside a block request? In the meantime, stop blanking my page - my gosh, it's just some unformatted hidden bullets for the unblock request - it's starting to look like WP:WIKIHOUNDing. I really didn't expect this of you after you were warned at AN. Why are you doing this? Nfitz (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to do that on your talk page though do you? You can keep that offline for now. You seriously need to follow your block properly. If you use your talk page again for reasons other than requesting an unblock you may well lose access rights. Fenix down (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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

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

Request reason:

Can someone please lift my block? Some time has passed since the problems I ran into working with the community last summer and fall. I've come to accept that my behaviour was outside of the norms acceptable here, and in some other aspects of my life as well. While there are a lot of reasons and explanations for all this, they aren't really relevant or of interest to those here, and I just want to move on. Thanks everyone, and sorry if I've been difficult in recent months. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per consensus at AN: [33] Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to a more independent admin to deal with this but earlier threads made it clear you needed to follow the standard offer. This normally needs a 6 month wait and it's only been 5 months since your block. This plus the fact that on a number of occasions since your block have used your talk page for means other than unblock requests, requiring more admin time to deal with, to me suggests you need to be a lot more specific in your unblock request about what sort of behaviour you will no longer engage in. Fenix down (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I think it doesn't necessary have to be six months, since standard offer is technically only an essay. The point is to have comprehensive rationale (but as little words as possible) supported by diffs from other projects. Usually I hate to use "time served" under any circumstances, but I think it really applies here. Alex Shih (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't really look at the calendar or the guidelines/policies much. Focusing on them too much is where I've gone wrong before, so I've tried to be a bit more holistic about it since; that being said, looking now at WP:BLOCK and WP:UNBLOCK I see no reference to 6 months, or time periods in general.
Various time-frames were bandied about in the subsequent AN endorsement here, but no particular time-frame appeared to have clear consensus nor was clearly endorsed as far as I understood. As someone in the AN discussion pointed out, indefinite could be next week, or next year, or longer. The block occurred on October 14, 2017 ... about 24 weeks ago; I guess that's not six 30/31 day months ... do the extra 14 days make much difference User:Fenix down? Also, I'm not seeing much in the way of talk page use other than my contribution to the AN discussion, and the log of articles I was intending to edit.
Not really too sure what to say about comprehensive rationale. Looking at what happened, last August I was clearly becoming far too obsessive about the lack of clear application of policy/guidelines. In particular, I think paranoia got the better of me, and on August 16 I made a fundamental AFG failure about the motives of another editor here, mistaking ignorance for prejudice. That lead to various conflicts; which I didn't deal with very well. All I can do is apologize, say I see my mistakes, note that the underlying medical condition that lead to the situation has been diagnosed and is being successfully treated; my sleeping problems were no secret - turns out I had massive sleep deprivation caused by sleep apnea; between that, and the various medications being used to treat it, my judgement was impaired. Perhaps I should have paid more attention to my wife's comments about snoring, several years ago. I'm a bit young really, for this to be a problem, and was relatively fit, not overweight, and in good health - which checks almost none of the warning sign boxes for this. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, the onset may have coincided with my first child a decade ago - so that the normal sleep deprivation of that life change, masked other things. Now that I'm infinitely more functional, I can assure everyone that there'll be no repetition of the events of 2017; I'm painfully aware, and embarrassed, of where I went off track.
I've done some work on other projects in my absence; not as much as I'd hoped. Though less in the last couple of months - I was hit hard by H2N3 flu, which I'm still suffering the after-effects of after 2 months, and work has been crazy. In particular, there's been various contributions in French, along with the odd edit here and there of various languages, wikidata, and at the Commons. In addition to various minor edits that need attention current projects include trying to rehabilitate the Nauru national soccer team article (currently in my sandbox - and it may not be rehabilitatable, but does require some tough research - the newspapers.com account I got access to doesn't have papers from the region I need, and the other one I requested has been approved, but I don't have access yet). Trying to clean up the near 10-year old mess from the Mozaikka ‎sock, that I may be the only person who cares about. Try and confirm the initial of James Timberlake, create Samuel Benjamin Marlowe, check 2017 Vietnamese Second Division, and add 3 referendums to Toronto municipal election, 1946 including approval of building the Queen subway line. I hope to update Charles Godfrey (physician) a bit (who is one of my doctors actually - treating an unrelated pinched nerve ... yes, he's really 100 years old and is really still practising!) and other small routine edits (here's an ugly diff of some I've been tracking). Nfitz (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, neutral uninvolved admin here. Can you explain the behavior that led to your block - and your plan to avoid that behavior going forth? SQL ^{Query me!} 06:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:SQL, I just saw your question as I was finishing above. I think my third bullet explains this mostly. And the 4th bullet tells what I plan to work on. If you have any further questions, please ask - though 2 AM here ... well past my bedtime! I could write a whole many-page essay - but I don't think anyone wants to read that! :) Nfitz (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you really need to address directly the issues that were raised on your talk page historically I don't think you're really doing this at the moment, your comments at the moment to me amount to little more than can't we just all move on, water under the bridge, etc. when there was a sustained period of editing that created significant issues within the community. It would be better for you to review your talk page, note specifically the reasons you were blocked and directly address each one, making a clear link between the reason and what you have earned / plan to do. At the moment I'm not seeing and have never really seen a clear statement from you that you understand the reasons for your block. Whatever the outcome of this i would strongly oppose any lifting of the indef topic ban agreed here. Fenix down (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been advised in the past, when I've gone into detail about the issues that it's all TLDR, and to be brief. I believe I've been quite clear and candid about the root cause, made a clear statement that I understand the reasons for my block, and genuinely apologized for the inconvenience. I don't think visiting ancient history is going to create a readable document. I haven't asked for the topic ban to be removed at this time. If you've got any specific questions, please ask. Nfitz (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I think what Fenix down is asking is to address the editing behaviour directly. No one really cares about the RL conditions that led to impaired judgement (sadly, but I think it's true). Right now I think the only sentence that addresses the editing behaviour is too obsessive about the lack of clear application of policy/guidelines; instead of asking for clarifications around, I think what you did was go into excessive irrelevant details that eventually frustrated everyone around you here. So if I was you, I think I would 1) When you find "lack of clear application of policy/guidelines" that are doubtful to you, seek clarification from one of the friendly page watchers first instead of taking the (sometimes ill-informed) initiatives yourself (such as the logged out editing to prove a point about range block) 2) Whenever your point has been refuted, immediately dis-engage. It would be helpful to voluntarily limit yourself to one comment only in these situations. You can always seek third opinion. Once these points are addressed, I think it will be easier to move forward. Alex Shih (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My editing behaviour was wrong-minded; I'm not sure what else you want me to say to be honest. I'm not sure a process itself is needed - other than not to edit Wikipedia without enough sleep. One response only might work for AN type discussions, that I honestly intend to have no part of, honestly. It doesn't really work on a technical discussion on how best to reference a detail about a paint colour on a Swiss naval vessel (for example); it's more about tone and context really. It's a tough nut really to define a process, given the intangible and ethereal aspects of much of where I went wrong. Nfitz (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swarm is the AN discussion necessary? I'm not appealing my community topic ban at this time; I think I need some kind of recent editing history to make a case for that. I thought (after that) I had a block, that the community had endorsed - not a ban; but I honestly find the whole process somewhat confusing. If this really needs to go to AN (and I'd sooner avoid that drama), can I be unblocked to participate in that when it goes - by the time I was unblocked for the AN discussion almost 6 months ago, everyone seems to have made up their mind, before I provided any input (though I no longer disagree with the end result). Nfitz (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see WP:CBAN. An indef block that is upheld upon community review is considered a de facto community ban. Therefore a normal discretionary unblock is actually prohibited, and you have to go through the WP:UNBAN process. I will unblock you specifically to take part in the discussion. Please remember that you still can't edit anything or anywhere else, until whatever point the consensus there lifts your block. Swarm ♠ 17:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nfitz, I've forwarded your request to AN. I included your bulleted list in a collapse box as well as I felt it was relevant. If you'd like me to uncollapse that part, or remove it, just let me know. As you know you have several talk page watchers so any comments you need copied over to AN will be handled for you! Good luck with your appeal, and best regards, Swarm ♠ 17:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict ... User:Swarm. Can we just pull that from AN at this time? It's Easter weekend, and I don't have time to follow a debate, with the family around everywhere; I hadn't realised an AN debate was necessary just to remove a block. Also, copying material last time, just didn't work; if it's not possible to remove the AN request, can I have access to AN restored soley for the purpose of this discussion. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Nfitz, that's totally understandable. I'll be happy to unblock you whenever you're ready to head back to AN. Just let me know. Swarm ♠ 17:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Swarm. I'll ping you at that time then. Probably mid-week I'd guess looking at the calendar. Nfitz (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay User:Swarm; anytime you are ready let's go for it. I'm going to be available all week from now. Nfitz (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alex Shih - I do see why people were frustrated, but I didn't see the need to go into lots of detail about it. I am very detail-orientated, and it's always a challenge not to get lost in the trees of the forest at the best of times; needless to say, last year was the worst of times. Ironically, everyone asks me to be brief, but then at the same time pushes questions and processes that seems to bias the other way. Case in point, this trip to AN - which I'm not seeing is explicitly required. The block wasn't imposed by AN, it was only endorsed by the community, with no consensus on new conditions. As such, is it really a community ban? There'll still be another trip to AN one day to lift the topic ban; as such, I'd think the most expeditious thing to do would be to left the indefinite block, which I believe is no longer preventative, only punitive; if I'm still toxic, that would become quickly apparent, and a new block would occur. Meanwhile the whole thing is going to get land in AN when I seek a lift of the WP talkspace ban (or at least the WT talkspace ban, which is actually more bothersome, to tell the truth). (that all being said, if the consensus is that this needs to go to AN, then that probably trumps any guideline - and that's the kind of subtle detail I wasn't processing very well last year). Nfitz (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, I'll lift the block so that you can appeal on AN. I know it's probably frustrating, but I will repeat that per Banning Policy, an indefinite block upheld by the community becomes a CBAN. This is explicitly explained in WP:CBAN, which I have already linked you to. So where's the confusion coming from? Swarm ♠ 16:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Hmm, this is the kind of conversation I'm probably best to avoid. I think what you are referring to is the third bullet of WP:CBAN ... after 'due consideration'. I'd assumed that we were not after due consideration yet ... and that an effective ban was what would happen months to years later. Either way, it doesn't really matter - if consensus is it goes to AN, it goes to AN. And no one has suggested otherwise. I do wish we had a less adversity-based system to deal with such issues - but that's another issue. Nfitz (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I think he meant the second bullet, "In some cases the community may review a block or an editor's unblock request and reach a consensus of uninvolved editors to endorse the block as a community sanction."

I believe that technically I still have the right to lift the block if I choose to do so. The community supported my block but I'm unaware of that process precluding the blocking admin from unblocking. That said, I tend to defer to community-based decisions and do believe that this is a matter best put to the community at AN.

Procedural question: Have you edited here at the English Wikipedia either with another account or as an anon IP while the Nfitz account has been blocked?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never while blocked User:Berean Hunter. I've done minor IP edits before I was blocked, but I stopped doing this when I was blocked. The only exception was the August 10 edits (August 10 for GMT-4 - August 11 for GMT) through the User:Nfitz2 account in a sandbox to test something, as fully disclosed both before and afterwards on my talk page. I have edited other Wikipedia (French, Wikidata, Commons, etc.) projects, almost entirely as logged in (the only non-English exception I recall I had redacted as it outed my IP). Nfitz (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(that being said - it's not impossible that I may have IP edited my own talk page here while blocked, but not while I was not allowed to do so - simply because I may have failed to have logged in - and then had it (or should have it) redacted because it exposed my IP. Nfitz (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

I actually did mean the third bullet point. I don't think the second one applies here. There's no way you can latch onto the term "due consideration" though. A formal consensus on a community noticeboard regarding a block constitutes "due consideration". It literally can't get any "due"-er than that. I'm neutral-leaning-support on this block appeal, but the attempt at rejecting clear policy guidance is quickly pushing me towards "oppose". Swarm ♠ 01:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to jump in, but I thought the second bullet point already happened (when I submitted the block review at AN back then), and when a block review is declined at AN, the third bullet point takes place. Nfitz would you please take as much time as you need to rewrite a unblock request that does not argue about process (I believe you are genuinely confused about CBAN, I think it would help if you take some time to read AN archives about it); and try not to go off topic about things people never said; for instance, I don't think anyone asked you to write an essay, nor did I ask you to go "into lots of detail". A simple sentence along the lines of "I have been misinterpreting what people are saying, but I always edit with the best of intentions and I am willing to address this concern through working with other editors to return to productive editing" (highlighted for emphasis) would do. Alex Shih (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only one who this isn't clear to! However, I think all are in consensus that this particular case needs to go to AN. I'm ready when you are. Alex, what you say is so perfect, I feel guilty for adopting it. I have read up on CBAN - still confused - but I don't think it really matters, as I am in agreement this should go to AN, and I have no intention of ever needing to be an expert on CBAN in the future. I know I've made some mistakes; some bordering on (though not quite achieving) psychotic; some of it is interpretative; I'm happy to work with other editors productively and return to productive editing. Nfitz (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we proceed with this User:Swarm? I'm fully supportive of it going to WP:AN as that is the consensus of all here; I'm quite willing to accept that is what the guidance says. Nfitz (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Let's do it! Swarm ♠ 02:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad ... I've just realized I've been unblocked for about 30 hours already to appeal. I'll post tomorrow after a good nights sleep. Nfitz (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted to WP:AN, User:Swarm, User:Alex Shih, User:Fenix down, User:SQL, User:Berean Hunter. Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block/community ban lifted

Per consensus of the community [34], the indefinite block and community ban on your account are lifted. Please note that this applies only to your prohibition from editing altogether; all other restrictions which were on your account at the time you were blocked remain in effect and must be appealed separately to be lifted. That said, please accept my best wishes with your continued recovery from your illness and with your return to editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, and sorry again for the events that lead me here. I look forward to working with the community in the future. As I understand it, I'm still restricted from editing in the English WP and WT namespaces, except for reporting vandalism. While I think it's safe to remove this restriction as well, I can well understand the communities desire to leave it in place for a further period of time. Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been more than six months since that editing restriction, so technically you can appeal for that anytime but I would say after another couple months. Cheers and best wishes! Alex Shih (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Nfitz. May your return to editing remain quiet, uneventful, and good for you personally, and may we never meet again. Take care. Swarm ♠ 17:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Not anytime soon anyway ... though I'm quietly working on an RfA for submittal sometime in the 2030s. :) Nfitz (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say...

...that I sincerely hope I was wrong. Good luck! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope you are wrong too! To be honest, I was losing my mind for a bit there. Having found it again, there's always a fear of losing it again. I'd never realised mental health issues could by a symptom of a physical problem - which makes me very lucky; many never find out what caused their issues, and spend a lifetime in treatment. It's kind of cool I'm still trying to figure out how this body of mine works after 50 years. I can understand your concern, and I hope that time will allay it. Nfitz (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the immortal words of Dan Quayle: What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is. Happy editing. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS IP block exemption request

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

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

UTRS appeal #22838 was submitted on Oct 03, 2018 17:03:42. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is related to an IP block exemption request (regarding a new range block that has covered my employer's IP range) following the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:IP block exemption#Used to bypass an IP address range block which is stopping me from editing from a corporate computer even while logged in. Nfitz (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Up to you to discuss it; it's your edits to add the columns being disputed. Your recent WP:BOLD edit has been reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. -- Alex^TW 02:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather overkill. Please don't template the regulars. Tossing templates around like that is only going to upset people! Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do template the regulars. -- Alex^TW 02:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I've already told you I have a problem with that. And that's your response? Perhaps you aren't familiar with Wil Wheaton's law! :) Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of him. I have a problem with you edit-warring over a tiny column. And that's your response? -- Alex^TW 03:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've never heard of Wil Wheaton?!? The famous (or infamous) actor from Star Trek and Big Bang Theory?!? I'm done. A couple of edits over a column is not edit-warring. Nfitz (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out which part of WP:EW states that when reverting constantly, it's columns that draw the line? -- Alex^TW 03:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not get anything better to do that misinterpret what I said? That's rhetorical BTW ... Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out which part of WP:EW states that when reverting constantly, it's columns that draw the line? By the way, please don't edit Fitz, as that may be WP:COI. -- Alex^TW 03:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Rhetorical question. You are banned from my talk page for 2 months. Nfitz (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, thanks for the discussion. See you then. -- Alex^TW 03:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Wikipedia talk:In the news

Firstly self-reverting with that edit summary was exactly the right thing to do in the circumstances. Secondly, for future reference (when you have successfully appealed your restrictions), if you think there are errors in Template:In the news the place to post is Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (WP:ERRORS). It turns out that it's been reported there already and I'm about to adjust it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that, but I saw that was for errors. I didn't think there was an error, just an area for improvement. BTW, I also just self-reported by violation to the admin who imposed the restriction in 2017. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nfitz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes

Interesting how I received a notification that your summary edit was a revert of my edit. Why? -- Alex^TW 06:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I tell you to stay off my talk page for 2 months, and you are here 2 months and a day later? Please stay off my talk page for the next two years. I simply restored and edited some text that someone else wrote, and you deleted, now that the episode has aired. It isn't necessary to question so many of my edits. You are relatively new here, so here's some advice: my summary wasn't great, that's for sure. Instead of focusing on who edited what, just improve it! Nfitz (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, don't revert my edits without reason, other than to be purely disruptive, and I won't be here. I deleted no such content. -- Alex^TW 14:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of what you just diffed. I didn't delete or restore that that. You deleted the summary for the episode that was broadcast on television last night because "Not yet released". I simply used that summary to write a new one now that the episode is released. I don't know why it's necessary to have any discussion about me restoring (and improving) an episode summary, now that the reason you deleted it has passed. As you are new here, here's some advice. If you look at the article history, you can use the diff feature, to see what each user added or deleted. Nfitz (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Also, it's a bit cute how you think I'm new at this, when I have about nine times the contribution size. -- Alex^TW 14:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were unaware that if I used the undelete function on an older edit like this then it would alert you, and thought it would only be from the most recent edit. You seem to be unaware of WP:AGF that would have stopped you from making a bizarre accusation. You are also unaware that you need to stay off my talk page, after I've asked you, when there's no reason for you to be here. And you seem unaware that's it's not cool to stalk and harass other editors. I'm also amazed that any editor is so vain, that they'd be bothering to count all their edits, and other edits, rather than simply trying to improve the project. Clearly you haven't been here long enough to figure a lot of noob stuff out - no matter how many edits you've made in a short time. Now for the final time. Stay off my page. Nfitz (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, and you then passively-aggressively edit the page, using the undelete function on one of my edits, to edit something completely unrelated to what I'd done, on text I'd never touched? Apparently because I undid your deletion of a summary, simply because that was the easiest way to restore the old summary, which was a good jumping off point. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself - the WP:OWN issues here very blatant. Your treatment of other editors is poor - and I'm not just talking me, you simply bully and talk over other editors you disagree with until they are bored with you, and go away. You are an embarrassment and disgrace to this project, and the kind of Wikipedia editor that they write memes about. However I thank you for your edit, passive-aggressive or not, does improve the article. Nfitz (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]