@Jayron32: I got curious, and intended to delete the resulting section (if created) as soon as it came into existence, so as not to disrupt anything. It was merely a nomination via Twinkle, and wouldn't have actually done anything unless community consensus was established in the few seconds it would have taken me to remove the section. On top of that, the section wasn't actually created, although it did make a red link, which I'm glad you noticed and deleted. TL;DR Got curious over whether Twinkle would actually nominate it (it didn't, thanks to the proactive actions of a certain administrator) had a contingency plan in place if it did, and overall, even in the worst case scenario, disruption would have been minimal. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ19:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, please don't. You're already the subject of a lengthy ANI thread, and the latest little prank is likely to get you blocked. Patience is wearing thin. --Jayron3219:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Considering there is an active, ongoing ANI thread about you screwing around in areas you shouldn't, screwing around in yet another area you shouldn't is not smart. Please be aware that if you screw around one more time, I will block you indefinitely, with no further warnings. I'm not talking about a WP-space topic ban, or partial blocks, or a mentor; this would be an indefinite sitewide block. This is not a playground. Also, this is me being nice; there is still the possibility that another admin with less patience will block you indefinitely for this screwing around. Stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam I will absolutely stop. This really wasn't a great idea. Thanks for the final warning.
Normally I would be reassured by this, but you said very similar things previously at the ANI thread. It is important that you really mean it this time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
my edit didn't need a source. it regarded information that was already sourced elsewhere on the page but was updating language to refer to his newly separated wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.68.101 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
@Guerillero From what I've seen, an editor can express their opinion in an edit summary if they keep it civil and comply with the rules. I checked Help:Edit Summary and my summary seems to be in complete compliance. I also checked the RFA for Eastern Europe and it seems to be compliant there. Overall, I don't think I did anything wrong, although if there is a policy I'm unaware of that forbids edit summaries from taking an opinion on the subject, I'd like to see it so I can improve in general. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ14:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The DS rules exist to facilitate collaborative editing in areas where tensions are high. Cheering for damage to infrastructure, or in fact for any sort of "win" by a conflict party, is not conducive to that. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The consensus at the ANI discussion (permalink) is to impose an indefinite block on your account. A sanction which I note you, yourself, have asked for. Although later it was suggested to lessen this by only partially blocking you from the project space, which has seen some support, the general sentiment, is still in favour of a sitewide block.
While there is community consensus for the block, it wasn't actually formulated as WP:CBAN and, as such, in my view, it's technically, a normal block. So, if you were to request an {{unblock}} from myself, specifically, at any point in the future, I'll be consulting the community rather than unblocking you unliterally. But I don't view that as binding on other admins.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I'm not sure if I should do this without pinging the blocking admin, so just to be safe, I'm going to ping @El C:. I've had a lot of time to think about my actions during my block, and I've spent some of it making contributions on the Simple English Wikipedia. I think I'm ready to be constructive in mainspace. I probably should have included this when I first made the unblock request, but I'd like to tackle some of the backlog, especially the links section. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ14:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I note that CU data does not support evidence of block evasion (a good thing). I'm not going to personally take this request to the community for discussion as I won't be around to see it through (vacation). --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: Hello. I recently noticed that that, since your reply, my appeal has been missing from the pending on-wiki appeals section of Category:Requests for unblock, and I was wondering whether this was on purpose or by mistake. Thanks, ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ17:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: I just checked. I must have mistyped. My mistake. It is, though, not in the "Summary of pending on-wiki appeals" table on that page, and again, I wanted to know if this was purposeful or not. Thanks, ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ15:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock Request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
I've had a lot of time to think about my actions during my block, and I've spent some of it making contributions on the Simple English Wikipedia. I think I'm ready to be constructive in mainspace. I probably should have included this when I first made the unblock request, but I'd like to tackle some of the backlog, especially the links section. Plutonical (Talk) 13:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by the links section? Perhaps you could give a sample edit.
On Simple, your userpage saysI'm here to kick redlinks. Are redlinks permitted on Wikipedia? See Wikipedia:Red link for our guideline on the subject. (I recognize that was written for a different project and over two years ago, but I want to make sure you understand our guidance on the subject.)
Do you wish for this to be brought to WP:AN for the community to consider your request, or would you like to compose a separate appeal?
@HouseBlaster: By the links section, I meant the section on the WP:BACKLOG page for pages with dead external links. As for my userpage on Simple, that was made in reference to the fact that many articles which should exist on Simple don't (and many articles that do exist have redlinks as a result), and "kicking redlinks" as I put it involved creating articles to fill that empty space, rather than simply removing the brackets and leaving them in plaintext. I think that I'd like this to be brought to WP:AN for the community to discuss. Plutonical (Talk) 16:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per consensus at WP:AN (permalink), you are unblocked but are topic-banned from all project-space pages (ie. pages that start with "Wikipedia:") indefinitely. You can appeal this to WP:AN after six months — per WP:BANEXEMPT, while you would normally be banned from editing that page due to your topic-ban, "appealing the ban" is an exception listed. Kind regards, Daniel (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
