There is no consensus to lift the topic ban at this time. I suggest that @SecretName101: take note of the Oppose !votes here which prevent a lifting of the ban at this time, in particular those noting that the topic ban has been violated several times and that SecretName101 does not seem to fully the grasp the reasons for the original ban or is evasive in discussion regarding this. If you want to come back for a further review of this, please do so demonstrating a complete absence of any edits in the areas you've been banned from, and also explain clearly how your editing will be different going forward from how it was before the ban.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SecretName101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Original ANI discussion
• Talk-page discussion
• Earlier appeal

It has been over five months since @El C: put in place a topic ban on my account. I would like to appeal now for a revisiting/lifting of the topic ban. El C has advised that, due to time limitations at the moment making it difficult for them to provide me with a timely verdict in reviewing the topic ban, I appeal to a user board such as this instead of to them alone.

I would like to first apologize for any and all pain or damage poor judgement on my part brought on Wikipedia. I better understand now that, particularly in editing articles pertaining to living subjects, there is a high level of caution that needs to be measured. I much better understand that, if a draft article that feels limited in scope an appears to paint a overly-negative picture, it is best for it to either go unpublished in the article space, or at least first go through other hands for review and revision first. I much better understand that, when such an article deals with someone who skirts the line between sufficient notability and inadequate notability for this project, it is best to practice particularly great caution.
___________

Months ago, I believe, El_C told me something along the lines of the best way to demonstrate that I contribute to the project with good faith was being that I proceed to make positive edits where I can.

Some of the work I have done over the past several months includes the following:

In related edits, I improved Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson, and spun-off/expanded Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, First impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson and Second impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson.

In related edits, I improved William McAndrew, expanded 1927 Chicago mayoral election, created William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign and Administrative hearing of William McAndrew, and made minor improvements to other related articles. William McAndrew was elevated to a "good article" by me.

I enhanced and created a number of other articles related to educators.

I improved Thomas Menino, and created the spun-off article Mayoralty of Thomas Menino.

I have made less major improvements to the articles of a number of long-deceased judges and politicians.

I made improvements to other articles.

I published new articles such as Michael Cassius McDonald, Benjamin Willis (educator), Unbuilt Rosemont personal rapid transit system.

In other edits, I undertook an ambitious change to the categorization of articles and categories related to United States constitutional officers and United States constitutional officer elections. I also made similar improvements for other United States election sub-categorization. I also created many redirects for election races described in sub-sections of larger articles. I also improved the category keys on many election articles. These involved thousands of edits.

I made other categorization-related edits as well.

I began work on drafts such as Draft:Impeachment inquiries in the United States.

___________
I hope the community will give consideration to this. If there are any questions or requests they have for me to help you in reaching a decision, I urge them to feel free to ask me.

SecretName101 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Permalink to relevant AN thread. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I too happened across this and wondered what on earth was actually being appealed here, which led me to this lengthy talk-page discussion on it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• SecretName101, You mentioned the Thomas Menino article, so I took a quick look. How are this edit concerning Robert Kraft and this edit regarding Elizabeth Warren not violations of a topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed"? That's as far forward from the topic ban as I looked, because I came across these as soon as I started to look and wanted to stop there and ask this question first, before any further examination, in case I'm misinterpreting something. Begoon 13:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been months, so I do not have a clear memory of every edit. But I suppose I must have seen those passing mentions as integral to a full biographic picture of Menino in their respective subsections. But seen them as merely biographical of Menino, not Kraft or Warren. Since it was a BLP ban, I figure I must have thought a passing mention that was necessitated to paint an integral fact on a diseased individual’s bio was not an biographical edit on on either Kraft or Warren. Neither changed a bit the narrative how Wikipedia portrays their bios across the project, I must have figured. I suppose I felt it problematic not to include his support or opposition of stadium construction, as that was a key development in its subsection. And Menino’s endorsement of Warren was well stated in other articles (such as 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts), so it was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretName101 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you thought it was ok, while topic banned from all edits concerning living persons, broadly construed, to edit about living persons anyway if you could mentally excuse it? Or you thought the topic ban was too broad? Or you didn't understand the topic ban? Or you just didn't take enough care? Sorry to be so inquisitorial, but I'm struggling to understand if you knew you were violating the ban, somehow thought it was up to you to decide if a very clear ban applied depending on your own flawed interpretation, didn't think about it at all, or thought nobody would notice? If you could clarify that it would be helpful in case I decide to look at any more of your edits. Thanks. Begoon 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not a photographic memory of every moment of my life, so asking me to recap my exact in-the-moment thinking on everything I have done in five months is an ask I cannot oblige. But I had, during my ban, asked for clarity before on what it covers, and how to navigate it, and been given very little guidance in return. I have attempted to navigate confusion over this. A moments, there have been edits where I went “shit, was the the wrong conclusion?” After I hit publish. SecretName101 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you're basically saying you violated the ban but it wasn't your fault because nobody explained what "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" meant (despite the linked conversations above)? There's a viewpoint that would say - "Well, ok, nobody pulled him up for this as he went along." There's also one which says "Why on earth should we? it was very, very clear and we don't have time to police every sanctioned user who wants to edit outside a clearly defined ban. We can only really look when they appeal the ban and we discover they didn't comply with it, unless something is spotted in the meantime". Where do you stand on that? Begoon 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been small edits I have made after being un-fresh in my memory on the topic ban outline, and that I later (upon refreshing myself) went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. But they had already been published by that. Which has me paranoid here (and hesitant to appeal) out of fear I’ll be attributed intent to deceive or violate, rather than being understood to have practiced misjudgment or poor memory of how to interpret the topic ban. It’s been five months. Early into the topic ban, I was figuring it out. And later into it, my memory of how it works subsided or got foggy. So there are a few changes I would not go back and make, for sure. But I did not intent to sneak them in unnoticed or deceive anyone. It’s tricky to adjust to a topic ban’s outlines, and tricky not to have your memory of its rules fade amid five-months of drama-filled life. I apologize for mistaken edits, and would request leniency/understanding, instead of the usual rush-to-judgement and condemnation I feel I have been repeatedly met with in these months. The point of these bans is to negate damage to the project, not inflict pain or punishment upon the user, as I understand, so the question should be whether I have been or will be causing harm to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let me ask you a couple of questions then:

• Why can't you indent your replies properly (half-kidding, but it's really quite annoying that you expect others to clean up after you - I've had to fix your posts 4 or 5 times now... If you wanted to show willing you could do something with the random snippet you plonked, unindented, below this while I was typing it - I have no idea what, if anything, it responds to... struck, because they finally did do that...)
• What did you do that led to the ban? Here I want you to describe what happened in great detail: why it was wrong, why you did it, what you think about it now, etc..
• How would you handle the same situation now - again, in great detail, please? Begoon 15:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word concern had thrown me off at moments. “Concern” generally means “be about” “scrutinize” “analyze”, all which implies principal involvement and not passing relation. Passages like those you mentioned were about Menino, not the others. The sentences were about Menino what Menino did and how he acted, not the others. I am sure that my understanding at the moment was that those were not as clear a violation of the spirit or letter as you currently see it. SecretName101 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the question of what led to my ban: I created an article on an individual I believed surpassed the notability threshold for their business exploits (having established a nationally notable music club/bar and received accolades for it). In retrospect, since the article was an incomplete picture that leaned negative, and since the individual's notability was so-marginally above the threshold, I would have not published the article if I could do it over. Instead, if I desired to see it removed from the draft-space to the article space, I could have requested other users review it, modify it, and balance it out to the best of their abilities. I should have certainly asked for further eyes on it. More ideally, I would have instead created an article focused on the bar/club for which they were notable for running, and only had a redirect under their name unless I could create a more adequate article in the future. SecretName101 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article indeed was poorly-considered. It painted too negative a picture on a figure that do I believe is notable, but I also believe threads the line between sufficient and insufficient notability for this project.

I think I would have done a faster about-face to the community, instead of wasting time focusing on arguing with those who were attempting to prescribe malicious intent to my creation of the article.

The article was foolish, but was in no way an effort to defame the individual. The primary content that painted a negative picture was sourced to a reliable newspaper, and was not a smear. However, that still does not excuse that the article painted an unbalanced portrait on someone who did not urgently necessitate an article on the project. It would have been better to leave there being no article on the subject than an unbalanced one. SecretName101 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also mistakenly did not take a closer look at one online source I used. It was not reliable. However, it was not a source that led to the unbalance of the article. Nevertheless, it was a giant f-up to include that as a source. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are almost encouraging answers. You still seem to think there are scenarios in which creating the article might have been a good idea though? Could you expand on that? Begoon 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the article had been far more balanced, and more thorough, there would have indeed been a case to make that it had a place in the article-space. The subject of the article indeed (in sources) appears to be an (at least regional) celebrity who founded a quite notable business venture. The subject also generated more recent headlines for more recent actions (such as fundraising for, I think it was, police carrying AEDs), a promised upcoming biography with headline-generating claims about their relationship with their ex-spouse, and other actions/ventures. There are grounds that this was indeed a notable figure. A balanced article on the individual certainly could warrant a place on this project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It really would not. I'm very concerned that you still profess to think that. Begoon 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate? SecretName101 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban is not to be given to someone simply because you disagree with the notability of a potential article subject. That's to be resolved in deletion discussions.

A topic ban is for someone who has given tremendous detriment to the project.

I myself have disagreed with the notability of articles the Wikipedia community has decided to keep. It is quite possible I am wrong to think there could be enough notability behind this subject, but that is not a heinous sin. But I would urge you not to render a verdict on your absolutist stance that there is no potential argument for this individual having been notable enough. SecretName101 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct that this isn't the place to debate whether a totally hypothetical article could be justified, as opposed to the "...speedy deleted shady attack page of a subject whose marginal notability would qualify him having his bio deleted as a courtesy anyway" which we had, so, yes, let's not get carried away with that speculation. My apologies for the tangent. Begoon 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, disagreeing about whether a single individual has just-enough notability for Wikipedia or not is not a cardinal sin that should bar anyone from being allowed to edit parts of Wikipedia. So that should not be the crux of your judgement at all. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously trying to say that "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" was unclear because of the word "concern"? I don't, quite honestly, think that's a sensible thing to say to the generally intelligent people who will be reading this. Some of the things you are saying are close to plausible, but that is not one of them, and reeks of desperation. That's not how you'll get a topic ban removed. If you weren't sure then why didn't you ask? If I look at later edits will I find more cases of you ignoring the ban because you thought it was subject to your own interpretation rather than seeking clarification? It was very clear, regardless of your apparent intention to skirt it by the "letter" or "spirit". There was nothing open to interpretation however much you might like to wikilawyer it now. Begoon 17:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Concern" is the operative word. I never made any intent to ignore the ban. But I indeed have stated there are moments I am retrospectively worried were unwise edits with the ban, but at the moment had judged to be fine, either through fading of my memory of the language of the ban (which indeed happens over months) before I refreshed myself, or due to lack of initial clarity on what the ban entails. I am confident that a phishing expedition will find cases in which you will question my edits out of the 8,000 or so edits I have made in these months. If you want to make your vote punative based off of these, it is your prerogative to. But I urge you to instead judge on the principle premise: is my editing malicious and harmful to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Phishing expedition" (sic), "punative" (sic) - wow - any more ridiculous knee-jerk responses you want to utterly fail to understand then, for good luck, amusingly spell wrong and baselessly fling in my direction?

I don't think you are intentionally malicious, but I do think you lack BLP competence and nothing you've said here has really made me reconsider that opinion yet.

What, to you, is the most important consideration when we edit articles about living people? And how did you let us down?

Anyway, I'm conscious that I've already said more than I ought to in one discussion, so I'm going to make this my last comment and let the consensus form. Good luck. Begoon 18:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most important consideratio? I mean, for the survival of the project, not getting a defamation lawsuit seems a major concern.

But in general having accurate well-sourced content that paints a proper (as-balanced-as-possible) portrait is the benchmark. SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there are several “good articles” and b-class artices that I am the primary contributor of that are BLPs, so I do not think I am incompetent with BLPs SecretName101 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this "competence" now encompasses an understanding of why "Subject is an American businessman and convicted fraudster" is not an advisable first sentence for an article on a person of no real notability, which would be the first google result for their name. Begoon 00:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been acknowledged that the article was ill conceived. That point has been run into the ground by me. To characterize one misconceived article as representative of my editing on BLP versus the totality of my previous contribution to it is simply unfair.

I have explained how I had seen similar (perhaps equally wrong) intros on articles of more notable subjects, and made the wrong conclusion that this was standard practice for articles on convicted individuals. I had not regularly created articles on subjects convicted of past crimes, so that was new territory, and I made a major misstep.

I have repeatedly owned that that article was badly conceived, have I not?

have owned that the article was badly conceived . Have I not? SecretName101 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm still struggling to understand here, though, is that you claim general BLP competence, yet profess inability to properly understand an extremely clear topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" because your "memory of how it works subsided or got foggy". Can you see how that might be a concern? Begoon 13:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I explained that the operative word "concern" is one that gave me trouble. "Concern" typically implies principal relation to something. SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: I really don't appreciate that your first reason for voting against lifting is that you believe I denied "obvious" motivation for creating that article. I resent that users have been attempting to force a false-"confession" of malicious intent. I had no malicious intent, and I will not lie that I did. It is a sad state of affairs that the rule-of-thumb of assuming good faith on Wikipedia is being so blatantly violated, and I have been repeatedly reprimanded for not agreeing to make a false confession. I made a mistake, and I have admitted that repeatedly. I urge others to take that at face value please. SecretName101 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal of topic ban. The question is whether the BLP topic ban is still needed to prevent disruption to the project. Secret's statements indicate he understands what he did wrong and what to do (or not do) in the future. As he is a 12-year editor with >80k edits and an otherwise clean block/restriction log, I believe the block can be lifted without harming the project. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think they indicate that at all. I'm still unclear that the editor understands what they did wrong, and I'm concerned that they appear to have treated the topic ban as an inconvenience to be wikilawyered around, rather than a restriction to be complied with - but I'm going to wait until they clarify that and answer the questions, rather than !voting prematurely. Tentatively, I'm thinking that now that they seem to retrospectively be beginning to understand the problem and sanction we should let them comply for a few months more with that understanding, and then judge the results again, but let's see how it pans out... Begoon 17:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lifting topic ban given their answers, it's unlikely that they will repeat the inappropriate behavior that got them sanctioned initially. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I'm not convinced that someone who created basically an attack BLP, and cannot, apparently, properly understand the extraordinarily simple parameters of the resultant topic ban is an editor we should extend BLP editing rights to. The parameters for BLP editing are simple and clear - we do no harm. An editor so prone to wikilawyering on the edges of rules and restrictions is not suited to the role. If they can't understand a perfectly clear, black and white, topic ban to the extent that they insist on wikilawyering it in their appeal and explain their misunderstanding as being because their "memory of how it works subsided or got foggy" then I have no real confidence that they will be able to respect the BLP policy itself, going forwards. And that could impact real people, again. They should give this serious consideration and perhaps appeal again later when their understanding is clearer. Begoon 13:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal of topic ban. If ever there is a clear cut case, I would think this would be a fine exemplar. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• With regret, I also oppose for now. This was an arbitration enforcement sanction, in response to the creation of an article that was speedy deleted as an attack. I revisited the discussion and the previous appeal, in which I made a statement, and am struck by SecretName101's responses to Begoon above, which do not show an understanding of why the article was inappropriate: the at best marginal notability of the subject, coupled with the wholly inappropriate emphasis in how it was written. Moreover, they show the editor has several times violated the topic ban, which forbade edits concerning living people "broadly construed". I appreciate that SecretName101 has found this a severely constricting topic ban given their interest in politics. I appreciate that they did ask for clarification, but editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons  ..., broadly construed is very clear: SecretName's responses above, and the edits given as examples by Begoon, show that they did in fact understand, they just didn't want to believe it could possibly be that broad a ban: There have been small edits I have made ... that I later ... went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. I am not imputing to the editor an intent to deceive or violate; but they should have reverted those edits when the realization hit, and tried harder to keep within their topic ban. [I]t was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia is neither here nor there. This editor was under a topic ban imposed for something rather grave and had already appealed once without success. They knew their next appeal would be evaluated in part on how well they'd honored it. But they violated it repeatedly, it appears, and hoped no one would notice, or that it didn't really matter. I'd like to give them full credit for continuing to write and improve articles, even though looking at the examples they cite, I still find their writing clumsy, stringing together bits from the sources. But maybe they dislike my writing style, too; this time I resisted the temptation to meddle. What matters, unfortunately, is that they still are unable to recognize the gravity of the problem with the Stevenson article, and they have not been able to adhere to the topic ban. So in my view, there is no basis for lifting the topic ban yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I was extremely unimpressed by the original issue and the fact that the OP tried to deny what was very obvious in their motivation for writing that article, and I am equally unconvinced by the further evasive answers to Begoon and the fact that they still don't appear to understand the problem. Also, they're not even keeping to the topic ban anyway, as per the examples above - and also a number of edits like this. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The OP does not get why they were topic banned in the first place --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support he apologized and admitted his mistake. This editor has done far more positive things for the project than this one screw-up, so why prevent and disincentivize overall productive editors from doing more good work? It looks to me like he got the message loud and clear, he's not a vandal, or purposely seeking trouble, and I'm not seeing any signs that he is/would be a repeat offender. Atsme 💬 📧 02:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC) ^{Adding 14:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC):} I just read the ANI discussion, and 100% agree that notability is not inherited, and that the sources sucked to the point that in-text attribution would not suffice; the redirect should prevent future mishaps. Having said that, I'm still of the mind that El C's t-ban, coupled with admin & community reprimands (and unnecessary interrogation by a few), sent home a strong enough message to this established editor; ROPE is a good safety precaution when applied as originally intended. I also very much appreciate admins like El C who have a low tolerance for noncompliance with WP:BLP, and will take appropriate action. As for NPP, we now have the ability to add autopatrolled mainstream articles to our queue if we see a problem. It probably isn't enough considering we lack trained volunteers and admins. We need more energetic editors to sign-up for the courses offered at WP:NPPSCHOOL, especially in light of the outstanding admins who were once active leaders at NPP. We consider it the next step up to adminship. Atsme 💬 📧[reply]
• Support There are slips in the ban, however, no one addressed them at the time. Had they done so, it could have been clarified at the time/fixed. To use it now is pointless. It isn't swept under the bridge, but holding on to it for 3+ months just to drop now...was it really that much of a problem? He has admited msitakes . Give him a chance. We can always block/re-ban if necessary. Buffs (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pages were created, overriding the blacklist. — xaosflux Talk 14:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create pages entitled ........., ·········, and ••••••••• and it should redirect to ・・・・・・・・・, but I can't, because it matches the RegEx .*[^\p{L}\d ]{6}.* QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QuickQuokka, you can now freely edit these three pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved. — xaosflux Talk 14:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itzchak Tarkay, isn't it curious it is open so long? It was relisted twice, last on March ninth.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be listed on AfD for any date. Perhaps at some point a relisting admin removed it from one and forgot to add it to another. I'll close it now. BD2412 T 06:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My gratitude to you. It was listed on the Israeli deletion list.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else that requires an admin to do here. — xaosflux Talk 14:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Eyal Waldman

Eyal Waldman is an Israeli businessman who's advancing social issues on a global level. He has a hebrew wikipedia page and I (Swunite4) translated it to English word per word. Awaiting approval for over 10 days, would appreciate advancement or feedback if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swunite4 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is missing the camera scandal and messy divorce with Penn:[1][2][3][4].חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is, in fact, missing sources entirely. It's also located in the OP's user space and not submitted for review. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Draft:Eyal Waldman. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Swunite4, this is not the place to request review. I've moved it to draftspace, with a Latin alphabet title and added the tags necessary for you to submit it for review. A biography of a living person without sources will not be approved. It should also link to other wiki articles. Cabayi (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've transwiki'd the source history for anyone that is interested in it, at this point next step is for Swunite4 to go to Draft:Eyal Waldman and complete the "Submit draft for review" process. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block endorsed and talk page access restored. Since this was not an unblock request directed at the community, this is not a de facto community ban. Slightly involved close, but this need not continue to attract input when the outcome is so clear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cbinetti (talk · contribs) was page-blocked from European colonization of the Americas by Bishonen on June 11 for disruptive editing, and asked to discuss the issue on the talkpage instead. In about 50 edits since then, Cbinetti repeatedly accused other editors of setting him up, bullying him and discriminating against him for being an Italian, Catholic and disabled person.([5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20], [21]) To be clear: there is no foundation for these accustaions of discrimination since, setting objections of bad-faith aside, there is no indication of anyone even being aware that the editor was Italian, Catholic or disabled. Among others, ScottishFinnishRadish ([22]), Muboshgu ([23] their talkpage) Doug Weller [24], DeCausa [25], Bishonen ([26], their talkpage), Robert McClenon [27], and Acroterion [28] made an effort to guide Cbinetti to stop making these baseless allegations and focus on the content instead. However, Cbinetti persisted and, and in later edits added accusations of unlawful conduct too [29], [30]. At this point, I declined Cbinetti's second unblock request and extended there block to site-wide, including their talkpage, for "WP:IDHT and WP:PA; longer explanation". A subsequent (UTRS appeal #59466 was declined by Deepfriedokra.

Recently, Robert McClennon asked me to review the block I placed and while I continue to believe that Cbinetti is not a right fit for wikipedia, I invite other views. I will temporarily restore the user's access to their own talkpage so that they can participate in this discussion and any admin is welcome to (temporarily or permanently) undo or modify my block as they deem appropriate without concern about getting my prior concurrence, wheel-warring, etc. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously the block is 100% reasonable and defensible; but also if Robert McClenon thinks there is magic to be worked here then I don't see much harm in (at least partially) unblocking with a short and clear explanation of why, and a short and clear statement of expectations to remain unblocked (say, that RMcC had better believe they are listening and proceeding appropriately). JBL (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I declined UTRS appeal #59466 as it at no point addressed the reasons for the block and went on to say they were discriminated against because they have some disability or another, are Catholic, and are Italian. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The IDHT is strong with this one. None of the above efforts worked, and I agree with citing CIR in this case. That said, there's no harm in giving them yet another chance, and if Robert can get through to them, then there's no limit to the future disagreements he can mediate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scratch that. We've wasted enough time with this person. In none of these edits do I see any indication that they get it at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the block is the right call until they start showing some understanding of why they're blocked, and we have assurances that the personal attacks and disruption won't continue. Then a limited unblock should be on the table. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would oppose any unblock that does not come with an apology for accusing various editors of discrimination and a clarification that Cbinetti does not intend to take any legal action. Baseless accusations of discrimination do as much harm in a community as discrimination itself, if not more, as they trivialize very real problems and make it harder for other editors to be taken seriously when they call out real discrimination. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who has spent sixty-three years overcoming my own limitations, and pushback against asking to have my needs met, I so agree. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse restoring TPA. It will be good to see if they took in my feedback at UTRS. Also, it will be easier to teach and acculturate them into the community. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And if there is any doubt, endorse indefinite block --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't understand why this block, of all the blocks made in the last few days, is the one brought to AN for review. I really don't get it at all. Shouldn't there be some reason to believe that they can change their behavior? Shouldn't there be some evidence of non-problematic editing? You realize if everything goes perfectly and he completely changes his approach, a 180 degree turnaround, he's just going to be civilly pushing his POV, right? I'd like User:Robert McClennon to explain why he wanted this block reviewed. I feel like I'm really missing something, or he is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh. repinging User:Robert McClenon. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I originally thought that this was primarily a content dispute, and I am often ready to mediate content disputes, even contentious ones. I think that I didn't pose my request to User:Abecedare as clearly as would have been good, so that it may have looked like an unblock request. I was requesting that the editor be unblocked from his own talk page, and that has been done. As I said, I thought that this was primarily a content dispute, but then Cbinetti said that he also needed to discuss his partial block, which he said needed to be lifted, and to discuss the alleged conduct of User:DeCausa. Both of those added requests or conditions place his request outside the scope either of DRN or of anything that I would do anyway. So I apologize for making a request that wasn't clear. I had been willing to try to mediate, but he didn't want to limit the mediation to article content. I am still willing to try to mediate the content dispute, but only if he makes a satisfactory unblock request, but a satisfactory unblock request will be difficult now. Now that he has not only been edit-warring, but engaged in personal attacks and a thinly veiled legal threat, he will have to apologize for a lot before an unblock is reasonable. I hope that this explains what my position was, and what it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon: just to be clear, and as I explained to you on your talk page, it not only wasn’t primarily a content dispute with me, it wasn’t a content dispute at all. My only involvement in the article - on one day- was trying to stop him edit warring and getting him to understand basic policies like WP:CONSENSUS. DeCausa (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:DeCausa - Okay. I had no idea what Cbinetti's issue was with DeCausa, and I still don't, probably because there isn't an issue that can be explained. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's all on Cbinetti's talk, if you enjoy reading. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block Wikipedia is not suitable for everyone and it would be unkind to Cbinetti to prolong this before the inevitable result. Checking contributions shows the correct administrative actions have been taken. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) This account's contributions to the User_talk namespace, which I've reviewed in full, are not, in my inexpert judgement, behaviourally distinguishable from trolling. With regrets, Folly Mox (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Also (Non-administrator comment). My goodness, what a time sink. If they had even hinted at the slightest bit of remorse or self-awareness over where they went wrong, there may have been something salvageable here. No redeeming quealities, leave blocked, keep talk page access off, and walk away. Zaathras (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully endorsed. What a waste of time. No unblock should happen without a full retraction of all accusations of persecution. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 05:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse it doesn't look like this editor can work with others, which is an essential skill in a collaborative project. They've reacted to opposition to their changes by writing at length to accuse other people of discriminating against them for being Italian-American, Catholic and/or disabled, which is clearly not true (nobody knew this editor was Italian-American/Catholic/disabled until they started making these accusations). The UTRS appeal includes a claim that the 4000-character limit is far too restrictive and a request for a phone call so they can give even more information. At the bare minimum an unblock would need some kind of awareness of this, a commitment that it won't happen in the future, and a retraction of the baseless claims of discrimination. Hut 8.5 18:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For reference, 4,000 words is enough to write an extended essay, the largest research paper in the Diploma Programme. I only just realised it says "characters", not "words", but the point still stands. Do they really think they can make a research paper based on their false discrimination and rage? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is their real name (a web search shows there is an adjunct prof), and as they have expressed real life ramifications, they should be allowed to request a username change. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering he even posted his real name on on the Teahouse, even a username change wouldn't help. The history page would have to be redacted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Renaming isn't as helpful as I thought it would be. They still found me. I'll be happy to courtesy blank user's talk. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the above comments and lack of response (or, disruption) by Cbinetti since their talkpage access was restored three days back, my current plan is to leave the account blocked but with talkpage access enabled. Noting this for the record in case this discussion gets archived without formal closure. Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As what I see as the original goal, to restore TPA, has been achieved, this should be closed and archived. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as not here to improve Wikipedia, per User talk:CactiStaccingCrane/Archive 1#Valid Reason for Editing European Colonization of the Americas. It seems that the user cannot work with others right from the start. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does not require administrator attention -- try the article talk-page or WP:BLPN instead. (non-admin closure) --JBL (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Ukpabio

I'm tempted to tag this for speedy, but not sure if it qualifies and would rather ask first. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that qualifies as an attack page given it's (at least partially) sourced and has been around for years with the content. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may go through and remove some of the dubious language and weasel words. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any obvious weasel words. Or dubious language...in any case this isn't really the forum for this. Try WP:BLPN PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just seems like they're trying to make her sound "dangerous."

E.G. "She is widely accused ^{[by whom?]} of causing widespread harassment and violence against children accused of witchcraft." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:BLPN. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of edits, but in general I agree with Prax that this isn't an attack page. The body of the article explains the {{by whom?}} of the claim above. I'd agree BLPN is a better place than AN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Handled by Daniel Case EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pretty large backlog at WP:AIV. Oldest reports over 6 and a half hours old now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]