User talk:ScarletViolet/Archive 5

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

2021 NBA Finals

added links pointing to Rachel Nichols and Maria Taylor

2020 NBA Finals

added a link pointing to Rachel Nichols

2022 NBA playoffs

added a link pointing to Mark Jones

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2020 NBA Finals

added a link pointing to Rachel Nichols

2021 NBA Finals

added a link pointing to Rachel Nichols

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi RapMonstaXY. I'm afraid I've removed your RfA, which wasn't formatted in the manner that we expect on Wikipedia. There's a lot of stuff to understand when it comes to being a Wikipedia Administrator, because it's a senior role and generally considered to be a "for life" role. I can certainly point you towards lots of reading, but I'd suggest starting with this essay. Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have read your request to be blocked. I will be willing to do the blocking, but only if you will agree to certain conditions. The problem with just blocking editors on request is that it can cause problems if they change their mind. Presumably, you would just stop editing, without needing a block, unless you fear that you may give way and return to editing. There is therefore no sense in a self-requested block which will be reversed as soon as you feel like it, so you would have to agree that requests for unblock will be declined. On the other hand, I have had the following experience. I blocked an editor who explicitly stated that if at any later time he asked to be unblocked, the request should be refused. A considerable time later, maybe after a couple of years, he did ask to be unblocked, and I refused. This then led to considerable problems, with the editor creating a new account which was blocked for block-evasion, and so on. Because of that experience I am no longer willing to block without some sort of escape mechanism in case of change of mind. In fact I will need a three stage process: (1) a cooling off period before the block, to be sure it wasn't just a momentary feeling which you will soon regret; (2) a period in which blocked means blocked, and you agree that you will not be unblocked, even if you change your mind; (3) an end situation where you may be unblocked if you wish to.

I suggest the following.

1. You post here to say that you agree to my terms, or to offer to agree to the terms but with changes to the time scales set out below.
2. You do no other editing at all for a week, and after that you come back here and say that you still wish to be blocked. Ping me when you do so, and I will block you.
3. After that you do not edit at all, and you will not be unblocked even if you ask to be, for an agreed period. I suggest two years, but you are welcome to suggest another time period. During that time your block will be treated like any other indefinite block: you must not edit at all, and if you are found to have been evading the block then any accounts and/or IP addresses you have used may be blocked for block-evasion, with no option of appeal.
4. At the end of that time, you will be free to request an unblock. If you do so, there will again be a cooling off period in case of changing your mind. I suggest a month. You will come back here and state that you wish to be unblocked, and after the cooling off period you will come back and say again that you still wish to be unblocked.

I am sorry to impose such a rigid regime, rather than just blocking you immediately, but as I hope I have made clear, I am doing so because experience has shown that just blocking without conditions can turn out to actually cause problems for the blocked editor. If you agree to the above terms, please post here to say so. You are, as I have already indicated, free to suggest different time scales for the various stages, but I don't won't accept anything of a completely different order of magnitude than I have suggested.

Obviously, I can't commit any other administrator to stick to my conditions, but I would hope that they would honour any agreement we accept. JBW (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@

RapMonstaXY

, I'm sorry to see this, and looking at the timing I see it's to do with me removing your RfA request. Can I point out that there is a lot to do without being an administrator, we have millions of users and only a few hundred admins. You ARE already effectively an admin, in comparison to other websites, in that you can edit content, see behind the scenes and really make a difference.

Take a break, but don't worry about being blocked, just leave the door open if you ever want to come back. Worm^TT(talk) 07:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

RapMonstaXY, if Worm is right in thinking that it's to do with the RfA, then I totally agree with him. It would be a real pity to lose a good editor for a reason like that. My offer to block you is still open, but please think very carefully before deciding whether to take up the offer. This is, in fact, the kind of reason why I insist on a cooling off period, so that you can reconsider. JBW (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I have decided to "unretire" from editing on Wikipedia.

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)