User talk:Plutonical

February 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... Are you okay?

It's about a month too early for April Fools... Care to explain your recent actions? --Jayron 32 18:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I got curious, and intended to delete the resulting section (if created) as soon as it came into existence, so as not to disrupt anything. It was merely a nomination via Twinkle, and wouldn't have actually done anything unless community consensus was established in the few seconds it would have taken me to remove the section. On top of that, the section wasn't actually created, although it did make a red link, which I'm glad you noticed and deleted. TL;DR Got curious over whether Twinkle would actually nominate it (it didn't, thanks to the proactive actions of a certain administrator) had a contingency plan in place if it did, and overall, even in the worst case scenario, disruption would have been minimal. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, please don't. You're already the subject of a lengthy ANI thread, and the latest little prank is likely to get you blocked. Patience is wearing thin. --Jayron 32 19:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Considering there is an active, ongoing ANI thread about you screwing around in areas you shouldn't, screwing around in yet another area you shouldn't is not smart. Please be aware that if you screw around one more time, I will block you indefinitely, with no further warnings. I'm not talking about a WP-space topic ban, or partial blocks, or a mentor; this would be an indefinite sitewide block. This is not a playground. Also, this is me being nice; there is still the possibility that another admin with less patience will block you indefinitely for this screwing around. Stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: yeah, that really wasn't the brightest move. I really thought I wasn't going to cause much of a problem, but that was clearly wrong. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam I will absolutely stop. This really wasn't a great idea. Thanks for the final warning.

Normally I would be reassured by this, but you said very similar things previously at the ANI thread. It is important that you really mean it this time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just for good measure, I think I'll just stay out of the behind-the-scenes component entirely, including AIV and UAA reports. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my edit didn't need a source. it regarded information that was already sourced elsewhere on the page but was updating language to refer to his newly separated wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.68.101 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Whoosh

Template:Whoosh has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

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

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

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please refrain from editorializing in edit summaries about what should happen. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero From what I've seen, an editor can express their opinion in an edit summary if they keep it civil and comply with the rules. I checked Help:Edit Summary and my summary seems to be in complete compliance. I also checked the RFA for Eastern Europe and it seems to be compliant there. Overall, I don't think I did anything wrong, although if there is a policy I'm unaware of that forbids edit summaries from taking an opinion on the subject, I'd like to see it so I can improve in general. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The DS rules exist to facilitate collaborative editing in areas where tensions are high. Cheering for damage to infrastructure, or in fact for any sort of "win" by a conflict party, is not conducive to that. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs So it's less of a direct policy thing and more of an intuitive "this could cause friction" thing? Thank you for clearing that up. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.192.76.8.74 (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

Hello. The consensus at the ANI discussion (permalink) is to impose an indefinite block on your account. A sanction which I note you, yourself, have asked for. Although later it was suggested to lessen this by only partially blocking you from the project space, which has seen some support, the general sentiment, is still in favour of a sitewide block.

While there is community consensus for the block, it wasn't actually formulated as WP:CBAN and, as such, in my view, it's technically, a normal block. So, if you were to request an {{unblock}} from myself, specifically, at any point in the future, I'll be consulting the community rather than unblocking you unliterally. But I don't view that as binding on other admins.

Anyway, best of luck to you in your future endeavors. Regards, El_C 02:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not sure if I should do this without pinging the blocking admin, so just to be safe, I'm going to ping @El C:. I've had a lot of time to think about my actions during my block, and I've spent some of it making contributions on the Simple English Wikipedia. I think I'm ready to be constructive in mainspace. I probably should have included this when I first made the unblock request, but I'd like to tackle some of the backlog, especially the links section. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2024 (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.

I note that CU data does not support evidence of block evasion (a good thing). I'm not going to personally take this request to the community for discussion as I won't be around to see it through (vacation). --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Hello. I recently noticed that that, since your reply, my appeal has been missing from the pending on-wiki appeals section of Category:Requests for unblock, and I was wondering whether this was on purpose or by mistake. Thanks, ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not missing from that list. --Yamla (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I just checked. I must have mistyped. My mistake. It is, though, not in the "Summary of pending on-wiki appeals" table on that page, and again, I wanted to know if this was purposeful or not. Thanks, ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 15:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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

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

Request reason:

I've had a lot of time to think about my actions during my block, and I've spent some of it making contributions on the Simple English Wikipedia. I think I'm ready to be constructive in mainspace. I probably should have included this when I first made the unblock request, but I'd like to tackle some of the backlog, especially the links section. Plutonical (Talk) 13:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See below comment. Daniel (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions:

What do you mean by the links section? Perhaps you could give a sample edit.
On Simple, your userpage says I'm here to kick redlinks. Are redlinks permitted on Wikipedia? See Wikipedia:Red link for our guideline on the subject. (I recognize that was written for a different project and over two years ago, but I want to make sure you understand our guidance on the subject.)
Do you wish for this to be brought to WP:AN for the community to consider your request, or would you like to compose a separate appeal?

I think two years is a long time, so I would be happy to extend some WP:ROPE. Given the background, perhaps with a topic ban from Wikipedia: space. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 15:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: By the links section, I meant the section on the WP:BACKLOG page for pages with dead external links. As for my userpage on Simple, that was made in reference to the fact that many articles which should exist on Simple don't (and many articles that do exist have redlinks as a result), and "kicking redlinks" as I put it involved creating articles to fill that empty space, rather than simply removing the brackets and leaving them in plaintext. I think that I'd like this to be brought to WP:AN for the community to discuss. Plutonical (Talk) 16:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get that ping (see WP:PINGFIX). But I have now copied over to AN. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Plutonical unblock request. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus at WP:AN (permalink), you are unblocked but are topic-banned from all project-space pages (ie. pages that start with "Wikipedia:") indefinitely. You can appeal this to WP:AN after six months — per WP:BANEXEMPT, while you would normally be banned from editing that page due to your topic-ban, "appealing the ban" is an exception listed. Kind regards, Daniel (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]