Sorry, but your username is not acceptable, as it rather implies that you're here officially representing the game 'Path of Exile'. Regardless of whether this is the case, I formally ask that you post a request to have your username changed before you make any more edits.
Having familiarized myself with multiple pages' worth of Wikipedia policies, I now fully understand that what I misconstrued as "vandalism" was, in fact, good-faith editing, and I am now also fully aware of the steps I should've taken. I did, and do, apologize for any misbehavior on my part, and I solemnly promise that it will not happen again. Everything I did wrong stemmed from my ignorance regarding the way things are expected to be done on Wikipedia which I have no excuse for other than the fact that I was completely new to editing Wikipedia at the time, bar a few typo corrections I faintly recall introducing in the past without even registering a username. I only ask you to assume good faith and give me a chance to prove that I mean Wikipedia no harm, and that I'm now fully aware that I should be conversant with all the policies that might apply to any of the changes I make anywhere on Wikipedia before I introduce said changes. I believe that all the contributions I have made to Wikipedia since the edit-warring incident, except perhaps the somewhat inappropriately formulated unblock requests that I posted on my personal talk page(s), and for whose overly aggressive tone I apologize, reflect that. PathOfExile (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that your statement is impressive, both substantively (accepting good faith) and stylistically. I'm just curious about one thing. If you are reinstated, what do you want to do at Wikipedia? To date, it seems like your only interest is the listing of the video game at Permanent death.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My interest in removing Path of Exile from the article was due to my belief, which I still hold, that it didn't belong in it. My inappropriate approach to introducing this minor improvement to the Permanent death page notwithstanding, I believe I have outlined the reasons for my doing so sufficiently to demonstrate that the change was merited, though I have indeed crossed the line with its ham-handed enforcement.
As for my future plans, only time will tell. I will definitely post another message on the talk page of the article I wanted to improve, addressing the points made by the IP that edit-warred with me, and I will definitely also re-introduce the change I made to the article prior to my being blocked. Other than that, I will continue to browse Wikipedia as a reader, and whenever I spot something that could be improved in any of the articles I read, and which I feel competent to improve, I will make whatever improvements I consider beneficial to said articles – all the while taking utmost care not to violate any of Wikipedia's policies.
PathOfExile, I have renamed you to "Iaritmioawp". This was after much consideration of your situation, I thought it worth giving you a chance. There's some conditions to giving you this chance though.
We don't see a repeat of this. The amount of snark and insulting language in there is something we just don't need on Wikipedia and if I see anything close to it from you I will be blocking you indefinitely.
You get on and work on subjects which are not about Path Of Exile. If you're just here to promote that game, then I'm sorry to say, we don't need you. I'd much rather wait around for someone who's not got such a vested interest in the topic. Any time that you do want changes related to the game, please suggest them on the talk page of the article and get consensus for them. That's consistent with the advice for editors with a conflict of interest
Your other account will remain blocked and I don't want to hear about you creating further accounts or editing logged out to avoid these conditions.
I've posted something similar on the Administator's Noticeboard. If you object to my suggestions, I'm sure we can take this back to the Administrators Noticeboard, but I doubt you'll get such a generous offer elsewhere. WormTT(talk) 11:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That I should learn from my past mistakes is undeniable. I fully understand and accept all of the above conditions of my reinstatement.
Just for the record, I feel compelled to make it clear that I am not here to promote anything or anyone, and that I have no vested interest in presenting any subject in any peculiar manner. I am not paid to be here, and I am not affiliated with Path of Exile any more than I am with Wikipedia. My only "affiliation" with Path of Exile was that I had spent several hours playing that game, and the only reason why I wanted to remove it from a Wikipedia article was the fact that it did not belong in it. There is absolutely no conflict of interest to speak of regarding my account, even though I admittedly played no small part in making it look like there might've been. Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this problem to my attention; I thought that providing a rationale for using a non-free logo already covered that, but apparently not. I believe the image is now properly tagged. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited An Imperial Affliction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Green. 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.
You seem really confused about what's plausible (or what the purpose of redirects are?) A person typing in "plowback retained earnings" is making a mistake, in some sense, but it's the kind of mistake people make; maybe they heard someone say "Plowback (retained earnings)" but misheard the implied grammar, maybe they have an imperfect recollection of an explanation. Since there's no advantage to deleting redirects, redirects aren't just kept when they're common (Plowback as a redirect isn't just "plausible" - it's "common"), but when they're plausible. There's no sense in writing an encyclopaedia then making the articles hard to find. WilyD15:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plowback retained earnings is an entirely implausible search term. There's no reason to believe anyone would type in the entire phrase; rather, they'd go for Plowback alone, which is a plausible search term as it's a legitimate synonym of Retained earnings, and hope for the best, or they'd go for Retained earnings which is also a plausible search term as it's the actual name of the thing they'd be looking for. I've yet to hear anyone use both of these terms in one sentence other than to explain that they mean the same thing or, curiously, to rant that they don't. I agree that redirects are cheap, and people can certainly mishear/misremember things, but we need to draw the line somewhere. Would you also advocate the creation of such "plausible" redirects as Plowback earnings, Retained plowback, Plow back retention, etc. because "there's no sense in writing an encyclopaedia then making the articles hard to find?" I certainly hope not. If I were to go ahead and create all of these and more, it would immediately be recognized as disruptive, and for a very good reason. Implausible redirects do not improve the encyclopedia, Plowback retained earnings is one such redirect, and the direction we must take regarding it is thus perfectly clear. That this unequivocal case of a bad redirect has to be taken to RfD surprises me. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That I was the one that nominated the article for deletion doesn't mean I'm the only one that can recreate it now that it's gone. You are allowed and indeed encouraged to create the article yourself when it's ready. For more information, go to the Wikipedia:Your first article page. If you run into any issues while writing the article, I'd be happy to help, but I won't write the entire thing for you. You can post the request at Wikipedia:Requested articles though, and perhaps someone else will. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iaritmioawp, thanks for helping me in guide to detect and fix mistake on my draft. If there's no mistake anymore, I'll resubmit the draft.
Kingsho (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. The article is still a bit lacking in terms of language accuracy which is an issue I was planning to address later today. However, don't let that stop you from submitting the draft. There are quite a few of them in the queue which means we'll have more than enough time to make the necessary improvements before it undergoes a review. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A cookie for you!
Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Your efforts to improve Wikipedia, on-wiki as well as on IRC, have not gone unnoticed. Keep up the good work. Happy editing!
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
I hereby decline your invitation to be a contributing editor to Wikipedia. After experiencing how it is organised and how people operate as editors, I cannot in all good conscience engage with such. I will also not be contributing financially to Wikipedia forthwith.
JoyDeValois (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood me in your message on my talk page, where I have replied. I actually think that you have also misunderstood the "alternatives to reverts" link that you provided. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Hello, Deb. I'm Iaritmioawp, nice to meet you. You didn't undo any of my recent contributions; rather, you deleted an article that I made no changes to beyond reverting another editor's no doubt well-intentioned but ultimately disruptive edits. By the way, you may be interested to know that the article had at least one previous version without any promotional content whatsoever and thus didn't qualify for speedy deletion as per WP:CSD#G11. Don't worry though; we all make mistakes every once in a while. Iaritmioawp (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, I understand. The version you refer to is not the version I deleted. I deleted the promotional version that you (for some reason) moved from Draft to article space. I don't suppose you meant to do that. Deb (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You speedy deleted the entire article, i.e. all of its versions, which was a mistake; don't let me get the impression that you're trying to deny this fact. We don't speedy delete five-year-old articles based solely on their current revision. As for why I moved the article, see edit filter log #11208324; in short, the page was erroneously moved to the draft space, and I helped the editor who made the error fix it after being asked. The article didn't strike me as "exclusively promotional" and neither did it strike me as anything else that unambiguously doesn't belong in the article space. Seeing how your deletion has been undone, at least one editor agrees with my evaluation; if you'd like to move the article back to the draft space, I would recommend you talk to him/her first. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately the other admin understood the process better than you do, and restored only the pre-advertising edits (which had already been deleted before I came to the article). Deb (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You negligently deleted a five-year-old article based solely on its most recent revision, as evidenced in the article's move/deletion log. You shouldn't have done that; rather, you should've looked through the article's previous revisions to check if any of them were worth preserving. Had you done that, you would've found out there indeed were revisions that didn't qualify for deletion, but you failed to do that and needlessly deleted the entire article instead. Fortunately, another administrator noticed and fixed your mistake. I suggest you learn from it and move on. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear you have little understanding of what actually occurred or what you did wrong. But you are fairly new and there is time for you to learn. Just drop the attitude. Deb (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand exactly what happened; I moved a misplaced article back from the draft space and you deleted it in error. Here's the timeline for you:
That's what happened; all of it is in the logs and is indisputable. You most likely thought you were dealing with yet another clear-cut case of a new G11-deletable article getting moved out of the draft space by its creator, and you deleted it without thinking twice. You made a mistake. Not a big deal, it happens to the best of us. Time to let go. Playing the "you have less experience therefore you're wrong" card will not work here. I witnessed the entire event live from its very inception. I saw the article disappear as you deleted it. I was in the process of writing an undeletion request when it got restored, all the while having a conversation with the editor who carried out the initial move. I know exactly what occurred here, and in what sequence. If you'd like this discussion to continue, I will ask that you 1) present your version of the events in a level of detail similar to the one in my presentation, addressing the question of why you deleted the entire article and not just the problematic revisions; 2) request third-party input from any experienced editor of your choosing by pinging them from this page. I generally dislike having more than two people engaged in one conversation on my talk page, but I'm entirely prepared to allow an exception here as I believe you could benefit from it—I'd much prefer if we could just move on though. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The version of the article you moved from draft space is still in the deleted revisions list - it was never restored because it was recognised as blatant advertising. Do feel free to confirm that with User:C.Fred, the admin who restored the earlier versions of the article. Deb (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're still refusing to get the point. I moved the entire article, i.e. all of its versions, and you then deleted the entire article, i.e. all of its versions. It was a mistake. You should've instead done what C.Fred did, i.e. you should've deleted the problematic revisions instead of deleting the entire article as the entire article—and when I say "entire article" I mean every single one of its versions—clearly didn't qualify for a G11 deletion. In fact, I don't believe the current-at-the-time revision of the article I moved to the main space qualified for a G11 speedy deletion either. Before moving the article to the main space, I restored it to revision #592145435 which wasn't among the revisions deleted by C.Fred. Your leaving me an advert warning template was thus as grossly inappropriate as your deletion of the article; your inability to see it puzzles me, and I'm looking forward to having C.Fred weigh in on the issue. Iaritmioawp (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Weigh in?" You seem to think this is a fight. Just try and see things in perspective, please. The version you moved into mainspace was tagged for speedy deletion by a third party, and it was only at that point that I was alerted to it. I am fully aware that you didn't write it, but you did create it in mainspace as it stood. I appreciate that you cannot see all the deleted revisions so you didn't have the full picture. However, if your version had not been promotional in tone, C.Fred would have restored that instead of going back to an earlier version.Deb (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "weigh in," as in "make a statement in a discussion that will hopefully end it," as there's clearly still a discussion going on here for some reason due to your utter unwillingness to listen to anything I have to say. To see the difference between the most current revision C.Fred restored and the revision I moved the article to the main space as, see this diff. My version is the one to the left. I would give you a diff to my restoration of this version, but I can't do it as I obviously have no access to deleted revisions; you'll thus have to find it yourself, but I assure you—it's there. As you can see, the difference between the two is miniscule and doesn't come anywhere near to being the difference between a regular article and an advertisement. Unless you're planning to leave an advert warning template on C.Fred's talk page as well—after all, he restored pretty much the same version of the article I did—I suggest you admit you were wrong, and move on. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me fill in some of the blanks for you:-
05:33—The article is moved to the draft space in error by a new user.
08:57—You move the article back to the main space.
11.03 – An anon IP user tags the article for speedy deletion, citing G11 as the reason.
11.10 – I am alerted to the problem by looking at the Category: Candidates for speedy deletion as spam. I view the article and agree with the anon IP’s assessment.
11:16—I delete the entire 5-year-old article (yep, all 39 edits), giving G11 (unambiguous promotion) as the rationale.
11:18—Out of courtesy, I leave a standard warning on your talk page, informing you that I have deleted some of your edits and highlighting the Wikipedia guidelines on advertising.
12.23 – You reply to my warning, suggesting that the article I’d speedy deleted “didn't qualify for speedy deletion”
13:59—Another administrator restores the article, minus a few problematic revisions.
What prompted C.Fred to restore the article, and why he chose to restore it to that particular version, is not clear to me, but he followed the standard etiquette of not reverting another administrator’s actions, and I have returned the favour. I see that another user re-tagged the article for deletion shortly afterwards, and you have made some improvements to it since then – all to the good. It is obviously very important to you to be “right” and for me to be “wrong”, so you can carry on believing that. I wish you luck in your future career with wikipedia and will be taking a great interest.Deb (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You accused me of using Wikipedia for advertising. Such is an extremely severe accusation, and in this case it was completely bogus as I demonstrated in my previous messages. Your deletion was negligent as you didn't check the article's history for possible good versions. Such is a serious error as deleting articles, although normally nothing but routine maintenance, is no small matter, and deleting administrators must always exercise due diligence. When an administrator fails to do it, and the failure is noticed by another editor, it is not only the editor's right but indeed his/her duty to point it out—which is what I did. This article simply didn't qualify for a G11 deletion. And no, it is not important for me to be "right"—I would much appreciate it if you refrained from projecting your own desires onto me—but rather, it is important for me to get you to understand the gravity of your mistakes so that you can better understand why you must avoid making similar ones in the future. The past is only relevant because we can learn from it; if you wish to discuss it no more, that's fine with me. Let's move on. Iaritmioawp (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Draft Article
In regards to the speedy deletion notice you placed on the draft article ("Penal Bond") I had submitted for creation, I am the copyright holder of the piece you identified as problematic here: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/EngLegalHist/MoralityOfPenalBonds. I did not transfer copyright when I posted my work concerning penal bonds on that site and I would now like to 'donate' my work concerning penal bonds appearing on that particular page to Wikipedia insofar as what appears on that page is mine to donate and insofar as the draft article might infringe upon it, this donation to be in line with the non-exclusive license policy outlined by Wikipedia in its policy statements. Jrp2177 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest in donating content to Wikipedia, Jrp2177. In order to complete the process, you will need to submit a ticket via e-mail as described at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. However, I must warn you that we will not be able to accept the text unless you release it under a Wikipedia-compatible license, such as CC BY-SA 3.0. The license it is currently available under on your website, CC BY-SA 4.0, is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright for more information. Please note that our possible acceptance of your donation will not be tantamount to the acceptance of your draft which will still be subject to the usual review process. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to say this, Jrp2177, but your request can only be processed by a member of our Volunteer Response Team that has access to the queue in which your ticket was placed. It is rather odd that they are taking so long to reply; I would recommend that you try to accelerate the process by contacting one of them directly via the Response Team's official IRC channel, #wikimedia-otrs. To access the channel, click here. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Scott Card racist?
(Note: Per wp:CANVASSING I am "non-biasedly" advertising a topic for discussion by posting a notice on the ten most recent users who commented on the page in question's talkpage and also the ten most recent users who edited the article in question.)
Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Super Granny (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gnomes. 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.
Title says it all. You come to it intelligently and argue intelligently. I think that is what WP is about and I should award you a WP barnstar or something, but I don't know how to do that kind of thing.
But sincerely I thank you. If I disagree with you, I hope I do so from the same kinda intelligent standpoint and that is OK, I think, and I have never seen you swear or lose your temper. An asset to Wikipedia. I hope I am the same. Sometimes I am wrong and sometimes I am bizarre, User:Lenticel is also very good at this that he sees my bizarrity and then suggests something better, so I sometimes just throw something out to suggest things that other people can see in a different way from me, and together we make the encyclopaedia better.
So I say thanks once again. As it grows bigger it gets harder, dunnit?!
I'm unsure if my rather infrequent contributions to RfD deserve such effusive praise, but I most certainly appreciate your kind words. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
RfA question
The discussion at the RfA talk page has concluded. There was less than 20% support for prohibiting the question from being asked at RfAs. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Iaritmioawp. It seems no one notified you at the time but there was a discussion recently about a question you often ask on RfAs, here. The consensus seems to be that your question presents a false dilemma, whereby the outcome "A or B" doesn't really apply because the 'correct' answer is really option C: 'Vote by backing up opinion B'. As such I'd like to request that you either don't ask this question anymore or phrase it in such a way that option C is a possibility. 'How do you proceed?' would be a better phrasing for the last sentence. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Samwalton9. I've read the discussion and I must say that I don't agree with your interpretation of the consensus at all. However, as a token of good will, I have decided to go ahead and ask for broader input as to whether my question should be (dis)allowed, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Should Iaritmioawp's question be banned?. If there's a majority in favor of banning the question, I will comply and no longer ask it. If there isn't one, I will either ask my question or not ask it, depending on what I feel like doing or not doing. I believe this to be a reasonable solution to the problem you've decided to create, and I hope you agree. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A kitten for you!
Thank you in my case : "own talk page against abusive editor with revert rights"!
If you're ever in need of a second opinion on anything Wikipedia-related, or if you just want some general Wikipedia-related advice, I'm at your disposal—but I must warn you that you probably won't always like what I have to say. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Airdates again: It's time to standardize them once and for all
Sadly, the discussion seems to have concluded at a time when I was unavailable to participate. Iaritmioawp (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've responded to the thread on the conflict of interest noticeboard. Iaritmioawp (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It was done for the convenience of any editor who visits that user page looking for a way to contact its owner. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:New Zealand Law Commission logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:New Zealand Law Commission logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The original closing statement for this section, to which User:Bishonenobjected, can be found at Special:Diff/949233495. Supposedly, it constituted gravedancing. While I don't necessarily agree with that characterization, or the notion that our anti-gravedancing laws (the what?) apply on one's personal talk page, I must admit that I am indeed in a dancing mood which could be affecting my judgement. Iaritmioawp (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Bbb23: Editing while logged out is not "socking" (see WP:LOGOUT) unless it's disruptive/deceptive. None of my edits qualify for either of the labels; thus, I expect you to undo the erroneous blocks to both my account and, more importantly, the IP range you blocked so that I can continue editing while logged out (my preferred mode of editing). Should you fail to undo the blocks within the next 24 hours, I suggest you prepare to explain not only the blocks but also your use of the CheckUser tool, which "must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects," as—if I'm forced to send out e-mails to appeal the blocks—I'm planning to also e-mail the Ombudsman Commission regarding your misuse of the tool. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
If your "preferred mode of editing" is not to use your registered account, then I would consider indefinitely blocking your named account and lifting the range block, although I'd have to first discuss it with another CU because I've never handled this kind of situation in that manner. Continuing to edit with a named account while repeatedly editing project space is a violation of policy, just as it is for an alternative (registered) account. As for checking, I did not check you directly. I checked an IP that was clearly an experienced user. Finally, I don't appreciate the threats. You're free to complain to whatever authorities you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: 1) "Continuing to edit with a named account while repeatedly editing project space is a violation of policy," you say. I say, there is no such policy. There is a rule you shouldn't edit project space with undisclosed alternate accounts, but an IP address is not an account. 2) You seem to think that editing while logged out while maintaining an account is in itself harmful and needs to be prevented. That is incorrect, see WP:LOGOUT. 3) Blocking an account while leaving the IP range unblocked so the user can edit is quite an original idea, but it doesn't really work because some edits can only be performed while logged in; for example: creating articles directly in the main space, uploading images, or moving pages. I suppose one could simply request these, but why create extra work for others? 4) Speaking of creating extra work for others, why don't you just lift your erroneous blocks? Surely by now you've reviewed the edits of the IP range and are aware that there's nothing even remotely blockable there. There's no disruption, deception, or even avoidance of accountability (in fact, I should like to believe most of the edits do me credit). 5) I'm not threatening you; I'm giving you a heads-up. If you feel threatened by it, it's probably because your case isn't looking too great. You went on a fishing expedition based on harmless edits of a random IP user that indicated some degree of previous experience with Wikipedia editing. You thought you caught something, but now you're beginning to realize that instead you caught yourself in a rather unpleasant situation. Regardless, I promised you 24 hours to reconsider the blocks and I will stick to it. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The silence is deafening. I have sent an appeal, and will be contacting the OC shortly. Also, I've just noticed that "[c]ontinuing to edit with a named account while repeatedly editing project space" could be understood to bear the implication that I logged out specifically to make some project space edits as an IP and then logged back in to continue editing using my registered account, which would be demonstrably false as the CU check and the blocks occurred on 1 June 2019 whereas my registered account's last prior edit was made on 22 May 2019. I don't believe that Bbb23 meant to make that implication, but I feel it's important to note this for the record. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
It has just been brought to my attention that WP:LOGOUT links to WP:ILLEGIT which contains the rule about discussions internal to the project so I suppose there might've technically been grounds for some sort of action; however, considering that the edits were good, that action should've been a warning rather than a block, and a CU check was grossly inappropriate, as was the absurd block placed on my registered account. Common sense needs to be applied before any rule. I will, of course, abide by the rule now that I'm aware of its full scope once the IP range block is lifted. It's quite an annoyance to be blocked on a tenuous technicality with nothing but good edits in your history; hopefully, it won't be for much longer. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
June 2020 update
In April, the Arbitration Committee privately warned Bbb23 that his use of the CheckUser tool had been contrary to local and global policies prohibiting checking accounts where there is insufficient evidence to suspect abusive sockpuppetry ("fishing"). The committee additionally imposed specific restrictions on Bbb23's use of the CheckUser tool in ambiguous cases otherwise considered to be within the discretion of individual CheckUsers. Bbb23 has subsequently communicated to the committee that he is unwilling to comply with these restrictions, continued to run similar questionable checks, and refused to explain these checks on request. Accordingly, Bbb23's CheckUser access is revoked.
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. ——Serial#09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: I have never meaningfully used "both an account and an IP address (...) in the same setting." I also haven't recently made any edits while logged out; in fact, I couldn't have made any as my IP is currently sitting out a 30-day timeout. Having participated in the related discussion that I started ~3 days ago, you're clearly aware of that fact. If you believe there have been some edits made by another IP that you suspect I control, feel free to list them here, or at any other appropriate venue, so that I can have a look. Otherwise, feel free not to bait me with clearly nonsensical templated messages. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: What do you mean by "this?" Implementing reasonable changes based on talk page discussion once the discussion comes to a stop as in the diff you provided? I don't think so. Instead, I think you need to stop doing this and by "this" I mean vaguely insinuating that someone's perfectly normal edit was somehow improper.
I shouldn't have to teach this to an admin, but that's how the cycle works: bold, revert, discuss until the discussion runs its course, then bold based on the discussion, optionally revert, and now we're back to discussion which seems to have attracted new participants since my discussion-stimulating edit, which is great. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
You honored your promise to undo your page protection as soon as someone objected so I consider the matter closed. Your good faith was never in question. Thank you for reaching out. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Logged out editing
Please read this if you wish to add a comment
I've now received three messages from confused editors[2][3][4] who seem to be under the mistaken impression that I might have edited as an IP while blocked on my main account. This is not what happened. If you wish to learn what did happen, you are welcome to examine the contribution histories of both my account and my IP range (which I made public last year in the interest of transparency) and draw your own conclusions. I dislike having to delete any messages from my talk page—I get so few of them!—but it's unfortunately become necessary here to avoid giving the blocking admin the impression that s/he doesn't need to answer my question. Thank you for your understanding; I'm looking forward to hearing from you again in the future. Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
You appear to have continued to edit logged out despite the clear consensus of the community when you brought this question to AN that you should not do so. You also appear to be actively editing in controversies on dynamic IPs without connecting them to this account. It appears that you are still doing so actively and consistently based on a look at the range (Special:Contributions/78.28.44.111/19) associated with the IP that led that that thread. This appears to be in violation of the sockpuppetry policy in that it is avoiding community scrutiny for your comments on threads on various noticeboards and on disputes on user talk pages.
I would like to request that you stop this in line with the community consensus on this topic from the last block review. I would also like to note for the record that the CU tool was not used at all to determine this, and that the range above was based on the IP that you publicly disclosed in this thread that I mentioned above. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: Please explain why you've elected to block my registered account, for 3 months no less, if the purpose of the block, as entered into the block log, was to stop me from editing while logged out. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@JJMC89:Special:Contributions/JJMC89 Shows that you've made a number of edits since I asked the above question about your block. Am I to understand that you do not wish to provide an answer to my question? Should you continue ignoring my query after this second ping, I'll have no choice but to treat that fact as an answer in the affirmative. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
If you want a response you should probably just make an unblock request. If someone is seriously considering unblocking you, they'll leave him a talk message. Pings are easy to ignore. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't receive any notifications from the above messages. The block log contain the reason/rationale, not the purpose. The purpose of blocks is to stop the target from editing, logged in or out. As you've already been told, blocks apply to the person, not a particular account/IP. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the purpose of blocks is to prevent disruption. If the rationale is "the person's logged out editing needs to be stopped," it only works—assuming that it does—for their IP block. You see, the issue isn't with my edits per se; it's with the fact I couldn't be bothered to log in to make them, a fact that you're unaware of because you haven't actually looked at any of the edits. We'll revisit this, and more, in 3 months though. Thanks for taking the time to answer. If you'd like to add anything, feel free to do so; I'll keep the thread open while the block lasts. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Comments by third parties
I would strongly suggest that anyone reviewing this block review the talkpage history around today. Important parts have been removed. 11:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQL (talk • contribs)
Are these "important parts" perhaps the three comments whose diffs can be found in the notice at the top of the Logged out editing section which also happens to explain their removal? Iaritmioawp (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Thanks for uploading File:Last Epoch logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
_by_Ron.jpg)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Airdates again: It's time to standardize them once and for all. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
