Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive335

Hello, I was chatting with Oshwah and I would like some extra clarification on the ban. I didn't realise my ban covered every aspect of transport, and I got completely lost so I just wanted to ask just in case --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

For context,

usual exceptions." In my chat discussion with EurovisionNim on IRC, I told him that "automobiles" include boats, airplanes, trains, cars, trucks, buses, helicopters, motorcycles, rocket ships, ...anything that moves by an energy source (fuel, solar, etc). He asked if he could come here and challenge that definition, and I told him that he could. He might also want to appeal his ban, but I'll leave that decision to EurovisionNim and whether he chooses to appeal or not to. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

12:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I am looking for more clarification and advice. Because the ban was enacted on 19th January 2019 and I took a two year break until July 3 2021, so I have only recently come back and getting my head around things :) and didn't make any edits on the last two years, but I just want to apologise and start all over again. I am a good faith user who wants to prove to myself. Maybe a probation/or unban condition could work. I am no longer the person I was back in 2018 and I've promised to behave and no longer edit-war anymore (last one I apologised and stopped ever since). I apologised to everyone and want to move on --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am confused. I went back and looked at the discussion at ANI that led to the imposition of the ban, but how did a ban related to automobile articles get broadened to a ban that included almost every other form of energized transportation? I read what Oshwah said about IRC, but I don't understand what gave Oshwah or any other admin the authority to broaden the ban without additional community input? But I'm hardly an expert on topic bans; the only sanction more problematic than a topic ban is an interaction ban. So maybe I'm missing something.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Bbb23 - Okay, I apologize - I went too far with the examples here. I hardly think that a rocket ship is an automobile, obviously. :-) I gave EurovisionNim the definition of "automobiles" to include boats, planes, trains, and other transportation. The "broadly construed" part is what had me including other methods of transportation into the definition of "automobiles". I'm just trying to make sure that EurovisionNim doesn't cross the line and find himself in hot water. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If this user is to be banned from all forms of vehicles then automobile is the wrong word to have used in describing the ban. This word applies to road vehicles. Was this a discretionary sanction ban or a community decision? Where did this choice of wording come from? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the link User:Bbb23. That discussion is about automobiles, which are 4 wheeled land vehicles. Even broadly construed I would only go so far as motorcycles and busses being included. By no stretch are boats, aircraft, and rocket ships what the community decided on. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC - I would say that "four-wheeled land vehicles" is a fair definition to put for "automobiles". Thank you for the response. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I thought the ban only related to cars. If that was so, then of course being banned from taxis, police cars, ambulances and vans would make sense, but not buses, trains, aircraft as they are different objects altogether. I found the wording very poor. The ban was a community one HighInBC. Its just didn't make sense and threw a tantrum and left and after two years, I wanted to just go back to editing constructively, but the ban never thought would expand to other road vehicles. However, my behaviour two years ago was very bad, but it was due to my uncontrollable addiction to the computer, but I sought psychological help and now have become a changed individual and no longer have daily fights and conflicts and now edit constructively. Hence I just. want some advice, that's all. It just sounds overkill to me and in hindsight some editors seem to be getting away with it and I never attempted to evade my ban/edit car articles, never ever during the period of my ban. This is somewhat a difficult piece to digest. How come another users gets an image restriction, yet me who gets banned from everything, where I haven't caused any problems outside the user in question and with the other articles, I don't know whats going on with Wikipedia!!--EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Duration of topic ban

The original proposal was "I also propose a topic ban for Nim on automobile related article for a short period". A couple members of community supported and indefinite topic ban, but about the same number support shorter durations ranging from 1 month to 6 months. It was closed by @GoldenRing: as an indefinite topic ban.

I am wondering if we can call this time served with the understanding that further disruption in this area can result in the reintroduction of the topic ban. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23 brings up good points. I'm standing neutral for now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If the community wants to lift the ban, that is their perogative, but to do so because of "time served" is disingenuous. As Nim says, he stopped editing right after the ban was enacted and made zero edits until this month. Normally, a banned editor demonstrates reform by (1) not violating the ban and (2) continuing to edit productively in areas unrelated to the ban. One doesn't demonstrate reform by leaving the project. Moreover, as I understand it, he's already gotten into some trouble for disruptive editing, even though he keeps apologizing. I would not endorse lifting the ban at this time. If the consensus is to leave the ban in place, I think it should be clarified as to precisely what is included by "automobiles, broadly construed". I would not favor including busses or motorcycles just because they are land vehicles. If we did, that would have to include medium-sized trucks and semi trucks and I'm not sure what all else. From what I saw, without reading everything in detail, we're talking about non-commercial vehicles used by ordinary people. "Broadly construed", which is thrown into every topic ban that I've ever seen, might include other passenger vehicles like SUVs, small consumer trucks, vans, things like that, and maybe even motorcycles, although I don't think that was an issue in the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23. I never want the ban itself to be lifted necessarily. All I wanted was a clarification. In essence, automobiles could include SUVs, and daily transport like people. I was not disruptive in other sections, it was only selfie was the one that launched me into an edit war which I was told off and apologised. However, considering the nuances, the ban was very very badly worded, almost to the point I couldn't understand and I'm a uni student. To be frank, Davey requested I take a break for two years, which I did, but if I'm editing planes, trucks, buses then yeah why is that I can't edit these being the problem. I don't need the ban lifted at this stage, and I know its very unlikely to happen as I haven't satisfied the criteria yet, due to my 'cloud' absence for two years which demonstrated my immaturity, but since its 2021, I just want to edit as a mature person. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@EurovisionNim: Do not revert any part of this discussion under any circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

But i do not want my topic ban lifted. I can't just randomly say I have edited, when in fact I haven't. I hate lying, I am a good human. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I came here to make a proposal regarding the ban but was derailed by Nim removing this entire subsection, apparently because he doesn't want the ban lifted. This really poor judgment on his part is disturbing and makes it harder to discuss his ban. Perhaps, the encyclopedia was better off when wasn't editing. It strikes me that whatever progress he has made during his long break is insufficient for him to edit maturely and collaboratively.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I asked for clarification. Do realise, don't you that I was a problem editor way back in the automobile project, and it is very unlikely for the ban to be lifted as per the

WP:STANDARD OFFER. I mean, if i just 'vanish' and then come back for no good reason, is there really an expectation for the ban to be lifted? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits)

13:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If you were going for a Cleanstart then no that wouldn't get you out of the restriction. Clean start only applies for accounts that don't have restrictions. Somebody who vanished and then returned with a new account editing in the area that the old account was topic banned from would be at risk of a block. ϢereSpielChequers 14:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• If EurovisionNim edits productively for 6 months in areas unconnected to the previous problems, then I would be willing to consider a review of the topic ban. ϢereSpielChequers 14:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

6 months is a bit too much. Is a

WP:CLEANSTART, this typically applies normally for good-standing account. At the moment, I'm on a probationary restriction so that would not apply, and I'm not dumb enough to sock as I am aware of the consequences fully. 6 months is quite long. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits)

14:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• The user recently filed an ANI. It's about a different article/topic area but, just glancing at the 2019 discussion, seems similar in behavioural concerns. ANI link (relating to the Selfie article). Judging by the events on Selfie, I think it would probably be better for the user to keep the topic ban in place for now. I note that his photography interest appears to be in automobiles. Removing the ban will increase the volume in edits, and without adequate time to adjust to community norms could lead to behaviour that results in harsher sanctions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I knew this would happen Oshwah said i should post an appeal. I just knew it would not work. I am just to the brink of vanishing once again --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a suggestion to avoid you feeling the need to vanish, not a boldwords oppose. If I were you I'd want to keep the ban in place. It's substantially more unpleasant to have the community criticising your editing history at ANI than it is to put up with a ban for a couple more months until you're sure you won't end up in that position again. Sometimes taking it slow is a good strategy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I think that sounds like a plan. I will consider the ban appeal to relift the ban around October or November per say. In fact, I want to readjust myself to community norms and just help where i can. But I am not trying to be stupid where possible and yeah maybe October when I make more productive edits and less edit warring is when I'll reconsider for the ban to be lifted (appeal). Anyone agree? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It is probably not a good idea to plan an appeal. The best way forward is simply to edit outside of the areas mentioned by HighInBC (road vehicles), and become more familiar with Wikipedia norms over time without imposing arbitrary deadlines on yourself. CMD (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but this is probably the stupidest idea you have come up with. There is absolutely no way I am waiting that long. In fact, I feel like I'm a worthless editor. I took my break, I thought everything was fine, yet I return and this is the welcome reception I get. As it is, I've created a strained relationship with my family and friends (blocking my ex-best friend today) and yet alone I get this. I do not even know where to begin first of all with User:Sjeintspen having gallery issues so I conformed to this expectation, yet User:Davey2010 with his bad habits reverted me and I cannot fathom whether my editing performance is not worth the energy. DO NOT lift the ban, as I know I will just return back to my old habits and I do not want to take that risk --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's a good idea me commenting here given we've both butted heads recently (and the recent Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Davey2010_ANI ANI thread too (archive link)) but given the recent issues that have happened in the past few days IMHO it would be unwise to lift it - Maybe give it till January and see how things progress and then maybe this can be revisited. Nim has also in the past few days made a comment about being drunk which I don't know if that's legit or whether it's an excuse for their incompetence (Tried finding diffs for this but discussions have happened all over the place) so honestly I don't know whether blocking would be a good idea or not, Anyway I personally don't believe the topicban should be lifted. –Davey2010^Talk 14:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to be blocked

WP:NOTAGALLERY cannot be followed per this with the amount of images added to gallery and its because of your version when you know clearly that its a direct violation. In fact when I removed the gallery you told me to f**k off, and yes the 'drunk' comment was a sideline joke which sadly you cannot handle. Go on Blokes Advice on Facebook and you will see this is the norm in Australia. Oh and how did you do in your GCSEs i wonder? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits)

15:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If you really feel that way immediately after unvanishing, and felt that way two years ago as well, then I think it's time to consider whether another hobby may be better suited for you. It's probably not worth doing something that leaves you stressed all the time. Plenty of hobbies that allow one to explore photography other than the English Wikipedia. Just in the Wikimedia universe there is Commons. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, that was an awful idea and probably warrants a block. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm that's true, but I am fretful

WP:OWN ways and revert me everywhere specially the the Simple Wikipedia for no reason. I think a temporary block would be sufficient. I cannot handle editing here anymore. When I first started, it was a very collegial atmosphere, but recently, I think it just got worse and I'm tired of it --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits)

15:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I assume I reverted there because it wasn't an improvement however that edit was 2 years ago..... again I revert anyone and everyone who replaces images which aren't better than the ones they're replacing. Again I did state on Oshwah's talkpage to steer clear of images but again it's instead been your main focal point and even after Edit warring business you're still meddling with images, As I keep saying I have no problem with people replacing images providing they're better than the ones they're replacing.

Anyway I shan't reply further as my intention was never to derail this thread but to simply offer my 2p, Please stop pinging me here, Thanks and Have a good day. –Davey2010^Talk 15:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah don't and also if you want to avoid this issue, please stop reverting people. It doesn't work and makes you look like a fool. There are better things to do with your life than going all 'Karen' on people's edit. Does it matter really if someone makes an improvement not to your satisfaction. In hindsight, 90% of my edits were not my own photos, rather were from Flickr. Also the selfie blanked faces were because of privacy protection and my friends who were in the photos were going to sue me so I had to be careful or i'd have to sell my parents house. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 16:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Block - not only is Nim now resorting to childish behaviour such as reverting me[1] and then undoing their revert[2] but they now seem to believe I'm racist[3] amongst other personal attacks[4]. It's one thing disagreeing with someone on a talkpage (or 5) but it's another to blatantly call me a racist amongst other things. I'm certainly not a racist nor would I ever revert someone based on their race!. –Davey2010^Talk 16:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I just want to be blocked temporarily. Its just not worth the effort to behave anymore. I just think User:Davey2010 is the biggest idiot in town. I can't handle this site and I am going to be leaving for a bit (I am not retired/vanished like last time) but I am going to abandon my account until such time as Oshwah suggested. Its better to be blocked as my mental health is too stressed out that I want to cause problems for others --EurovisionNim (lets talk!)(contributionnes) 17:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I thought the GCSEs jab[5][6] and the related comment on your user talk Talk:Mercedes-Benz Citaro was also highly inappropriate. plus hostility to other users here [7]. Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks would've been the smarter idea if they don't think they can stop editing voluntarily; I don't think the editor realises they cannot control the duration of PA/harassment blocks, but this is firmly in that territory now. Since they're already subject to one IBAN but have issues with other users too, unfortunately I think this is perhaps not the environment for them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked EurovisionNim for
  personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 17:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I've got a pretty obvious case of sockpuppetry. Do I steam in and exercise the banhammer, or should it go to SPI to make it "official"? Mjroots (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots - Create an SPI report. This way, the sock puppetry is documented for tracking and record-keeping purposes. Let me know when you create it, and I'll check it out with my checkuser eyes and see if there might be any sleepers. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhushan m bhandari. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots - Perfect. I'm taking a look at it now... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Zenkaino lovelive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Contribs on Korean Wiktionary.
• Korean Wikisource
• English Wiktionary
• User was check user blocked and
  CBANned. It's been a rocky road, with many unsuccessful requests and block evasion. User made an unsuccessful appeal to the community April, 2020
  . Check user review at UTRS did not find anything troubling. User has been contributing on Korean Wiktionary, Korean Wikisource and English Wiktionary. There request must speak for itself. I have copied it from their talk page below.

Hello, admins. I'm asking for an unban. I've left enwiki because of my ban for socking. I think that the ban was necessary to make me change my ways. I understand now that socking is very wrong, because it is lying to the Wikipedia community. I'm sorry that I lied about socking December 2019. I just wanted to ignore it. Therefore, I'll disclose ALL my socks (Zenkaino lovelive (original), ABOChannel (sock), Steven Hansen (sock)), and I DIDN'T EDIT ALL WIKIPEDIA since Dec 2020, and did not sock since my last sock day. I evaded my block by using 3 IPs (198.16.76.28, 175.223.27.43 and 175.223.3.71). I'm told to and must not edit ANY Wikipedia. So, I'd like to ask that my ban be lifted. I'm strongly asking that the Wikipedia community would welcome me back into their midst. I understand that I will likely never be trustworthy, but I ask that I would at least be given another chance at the English Wikipedia. I understand that what I did was wrong. I understand that I initially got block for socking in the RfC, and then I tried to evade my block by socking again. I'm sorry for these. If I am allowed back on enwiki, I will only use Zenkaino lovelive account, in any edits, discussions, and votes. But sometimes IP will be used. At first, I thought that I was extremely mad about having the block, but as too long time went on, I came to realize that the blocking admin did the right thing, that my behavior at the time was getting out of hand, and that I take full responsibility for my actions that led to my block. Fortunately, 27 months have passed since I was sitewide indeffed from enwiki, and my mental health has recovered enough for me to contribute to Wikipedia. I have learned several things and I have grown in several ways during the time I was indefinitely blocked sitewide: I now understand that Wikipedia is built more on cooperating with other people than simply expanding easy access to knowledge, and that failing to do so may cause a systemic bias in Wikipedia's content or even result in losing my ability to contribute, especially when one of the two results in the other. I will never sock again. I understand that this is my second chance. I haven't edited ALL Wikipedia since December, including UTRS. Reliable sources are needed for any content and I won't cite unreliable sources. Also, if it seems incorrect, discuss first before putting it. I would make productive contributions by adding true information only, and if a conflict is occurred, I'll talk or discuss it first. I would like to contribute in language-related and Microsoft Windows-related articles, etc. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support, but with a one-account restriction. Specifically, "But sometimes IP will be used" worries me; let's head off the concerns by requiring all edits occur from a single account. Note that the previous unban request noted they were disruptive on IRC. This hasn't really been directly addressed, though I believe this time out, they have not been disruptive. I strongly opposed last time around. --Yamla (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  didn't see that. @Zenkaino lovelive: No logged out edits should be made. This is true for all of us. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• If this user is unblocked - something I won't vote on, since I haven't looked into it - they need to be aware that there won't be a lot of tolerance for future disruption. If disruption resumes, it will be nipped in the bud with an indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support one account restriction. No logged out edits. Also, strict adherence to
  MOS:ACCESS with respect to color schemes. And absolutely no canvassing here or via other Wiki's. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
  14:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support With one account restriction. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support with one account restriction and instruction to only edit while logged in. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin close Template talk:Infobox UK place#Proposal - remove automatic capitalisation from post towns please? Thanks. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 20:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Wikkedout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just blocked Wikkedout for making personal attacks. I then realized that I might be seen as involved, as I had commented in a thread (Talk:Los Angeles#Language in lede) in which Wikkedout made the first of his attacks. I did not see the attacks as directed against me, but I now realize that the optics are bad. Any admin is free to take any action on the block they deem appropriate. I do not plan to formally notify Wikkedout, as I am not reporting his behavior, but rather my behavior. - Donald Albury 16:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) As far as I can see you had not interacted with the editor, only with the thread, and blocked them following their comment on the issue, without ever having interacting with them. In my opinion thats not being involved, but simply enforcing the NPA policy. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Albury Given Special:Diff/1033980528 and related comments on their talk page, I think your block was just fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. - Donald Albury 17:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Why does it always seem to be the people who get nearly everything right who are the ones to admit that they might possibly be fallible? If only those who make a habit of getting things wrong would do so. The editor needed to be blocked, and you were there to do it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 17:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keresluna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A bulk RM at

EDIT: Looks like this was a case of

WP:BADNAC [10] by an involved user Keresluna (talk · contribs), which was then seemingly withdrawn by the same user [11] without re-adding the RM header. I've restored the template as thisclosure was clearly an act of gross misconduct. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄

) 01:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I notified this user about the improper involved closure at User_talk:Keresluna#involved_closure. The user simply reverted the closure of the RM, but this did not relist it at requested moves. I arguably should have done so manually as LaundryPizza03 has now done, but did not want to perform an involved relist myself. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The move discussion has been reopened properly and now is on the talk page at Talk:Actinium(III) chloride. Nothing more to do here, since Keresluna states that they are no longer active. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)