You're right, changing your closing wording without changing the signature was not the best idea. I apologize. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: Oh, ha, I wasn’t really expecting a response — thanks for your apology! And of course on the substantive question you were 100% right, my original was not a great choice of closing summary. —100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Dixiecrat/Archive 2, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WhoAteMyButter (🎄_talk│☃️^contribs) 23:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the recent close you made, you really should create an account before closing an article or leave it up to an experienced editor. Thanks Nemov (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I just undid two closes you made of ANI threads. Please don't close any threads at administrative noticeboards.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that seems really silly, but ok, sure. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, could you please respond at Talk:Olivia Newton-John#Request for comment? I'm pinging prior participants to see if they'd like to respond to a late guideline citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Firefangledfeathers — I don’t think I have anything to add. (And the comments from a 128… ip were also mine.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not every day I see an IP that is a quality contributor. I would suggest making an account, as it gives you many privileges and more anonymity, but you don't have to. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces (Wikipedia) for a period of 1 month for closing discussions at administrative noticeboards after having been warned, the last of which included no edit summary and no reason for the close in the template.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason for changing archive pages en masse as you're doing now? 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m repairing (slowly, by hand) poor choices by an IP6 who did a whole bunch of them without any obvious logic or consideration: see Special:Contributions/2402:800:63A5:A99C:E41D:734C:54:2559. In my opinion, it is better if the archiving bot does not completely empty talk pages, since that obscures for future editors what issues have been raised and discussed before. (I am done for the morning fwiw.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Have a good day. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too! (And thanks also for the way you handled the query.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 100.36.106.199, I had extended the block to a sitewide one for a year for a moment. I had also incorrectly described your actions as "low-quality meta contributions", but that description would only apply to the closures that led to Bbb23's block and perhaps the edit warring currently reported, but few (if any) other edits. I'm sorry for the inconvenience possibly created by this and have noted in the block log that it was my mistake. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: thanks for your comments here and at the noticeboard — I appreciate you making the effort to take a closer look. And I plead guilty as far as the particular edits you mention are concerned :/. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind feedback and forgiveness. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Today, this IP editor seems to have gone around systematically reverting my recent contributions without explanation. I've reverted them, but do you have any suggestions on what to do if it continues? (I can't report them to any noticeboards, obviously.) (This follows this astonishing edit yesterday in which Giacomo1968 reverted me in order to include a citation of the Weekly World News; what can one even say?) --100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Rose of Sharon this reversion was unnecessary. I haven't checked the others. Invasive Spices (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did the right thing by messaging the editor on their (current IP's) talk page. If something needs to be escalated to ANI, I guess you can try adding a {{edit partially-blocked}} to WT:ANI, and requesting an unblock if that becomes a common necessity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I certainly hope that won't be necessary! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I'm sorry to pester but they're back: [1]. --100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're a troll who has seen the discussion at WP:ANEW and is now trying to make Evrik look like a sockpuppeteer, mimicking the edit summaries used in the dispute. Please keep me updated; if it continued, it's now clearly block evasion and may be freely reverted and – normally – reported at WP:SPI or in very simple cases WP:AIV with a quick list of diff links that make the connection obvious.

If you understand what led to the block and won't continue doing that, you should probably request an unblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense; what an amazingly lame hobby, though. Thanks again, and sorry for all the trouble. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good revert. I hadn't found an actual archive page, or I would have done that. – .Raven  .talk 22:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome — not sure how one would find it. (In my case it was looking at your contributions, but that only worked because you’d already archived it.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please do not troll. jp×g🗯️ 22:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks. JPxG, in the time you spent lecturing me you could have just looked through their edit history, fully half of it is obvious pro-Nazi whitewashing (not Nazi in the sense of things I don't like, but Nazi in the sense of the former German political party that conducted genocide) and the other half is obvious far-right POV pushing not specifically related to Nazism; it's not like they were subtle. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Aaronfranke (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

100.36.106.199 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is not necessary to stop disruption; as is easily visible from the history of my edits, I stopped reverting as soon as a second editor (Czello) had objected to my changes. Moreover, I had already initiated discussions on both the talk page of the article and at WT:WPM. Unfortunately the filing editor is not competent to participate meaningfully in those discussions; why that is being held against me rather than against him is not at all clear. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

per discussion and with assurances that discussion will replace edit warring.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)

@Firefangledfeathers: thanks for this. Of course the real reason that I was blocked and AF was not (despite the fact that the first and last reverts at the time of filing were his) is that he is using an account. Indeed if it were actually about personal attacks, someone might have noticed that his comments towards me are equally full of them (calling my correct tagging vandalism, etc.). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not warning them about that edit summary was an oversight on my part, which I've now corrected. I don't plan on blocking unless the behavior repeats. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:casting aspersions as above will not get you unblocked. I was set to ping the blocking admn till I saw that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot this block seems like an excessively blunt instrument for a problem that I expect can be solved through dialog. Both editors here seem in the wrong as far as tone/politeness go, but the content concerns per se easily land on the side of this IP editor in my opinion. The article was a mess of vague unsourced claims, nonstandard terminology, and possibly original research, about which concern is warranted.

Can someone undo the block, noting that now several other editors are paying attention to the page? Hopefully 100.36.106.199 can try to be a bit more polite and patient and we can talk the article through on the discussion page instead of having revert wars about it. In particular this IP editor should be encouraged to participate (politely) on the talk page, where I think their feedback will be valuable for building consensus. –jacobolus (t) 23:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin may remove this block without consulting me further if they have good cause. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the casting of aspersions and the personal attacks, I think the unblock request indicates a knowledge of what to do other than edit warring i a content dispute. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot is there another admin here? If not, can you please remove it? It's been ~12 hours and I don't anticipate this staying a problem from here forward; as I said there are now a number of experienced editors paying attention. If it becomes a problem again, someone can appeal to reinstate the block. The point of this kind of block is just to stop disruption, not to punish people. My impression is that the disruption per se is now solved; further content disputes can be worked out at the talk page, but the IP editor should be welcome to participate in that dialog. –jacobolus (t) 01:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus: What? Remove what? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked. . . . Perhaps you did not see? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thanks! I didn't notice. –jacobolus (t) 01:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(DFO breathes sigh of relief) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not I'm not here all the time- glad DFO took action. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers, Deepfriedokra, Jacobolus, and Chatul: Thank you for your comments and actions. I agree with the assessment that I could have been more collegial, and I will apologize to AF for that in a moment. I see there's been a lot of activity on the talk page, I will go have a look at that, too. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Please also read the talk header section of pages in this topic area for possible additional information and editing restrictions. It does not appear that this notice has been posted to your talk page. If it has already been left already by another editor, please let me know. If you have questions, please request help at the Teahouse.  // Timothy :: talk  20:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bolsheviks, you may be blocked from editing. This has been explained to you on talk.[2] I will restore the consensus version once more (see history [3],[4],[5]), three editors have reverted you.[6],[7],[8] You need to stop. If you want to continue this, post a message at WP:ANI.

The onus is on you to achieve consensus for the change.  // Timothy :: talk  12:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary reads: "Sometimes people put two links in one ref tag; then refill just deletes one." Then to avoid this you may add full references instead of adding bare urls. Egeymi (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Egeymi: I did not add the references in question, I just noticed that you deleted links because you did not carefully check the output of reFill. Please check more carefully when using automated reference tools, they are very sloppy and can do a lot of damage (see e.g. User:XOR'easter/sandbox/ReferenceExpander). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw go by your recent edits at 18 (Number) (and I agree with them), and I just wanted to say, about your edit summaries, that they should make sense on their own, because often, for instance in Recent Changes, we only see edits individually, so if you say just "ditto" sometimes people won't know what you're talking about. Something like (in this case) "more WP:OR" would be more helpful. Cheers, — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alien333: Thanks for stopping by; that's good advice, I will try to keep it in mind. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the editor as well, but can I suggest dialling down you comments a bit? The more heat in the discussion the more heat it generates. Feel free to tell me to find something else to worry about if you feel I've overstepped. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks, you're probably right. I think I've vented enough for one day. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know the temptation all to well ;) -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to disengage, admnins can see for themselves what is happening. You are (in many ways) also bludgeoning the process. Let the admins sort it out now. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Yes, please see the section above directly above this one. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh sorry, was not aware this was the same issue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I guess the previous message was a little vague. Anyhow, thanks for the advice (which was good even if belated). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say Hi, as a fellow relative newbie ^[9] who also found it hard to step away from this!

I hate to see generally competent editors get so het up that they lose sight of what's happening & it ends up going downhill, with everyone worse off for it.

More experienced editors could see things coming & knew when to disengage, which is an incredibly valuable skill to learn.

I'll admit I wrote a second post, then rewrote it three or four times, then realised that it wouldn't have changed anything & deleted it.

I mean, I'm a complete stranger, so no matter what I wrote the blinkers were on and there was too much momentum; the hammer was inevitable.

I hope they calm down and we see them soon in a few months, but with a more collaborative mindset! Worst case, they either never return or come back with a vengeance, but I still live in hope that this is a success story...

Anyway, sorry for bothering you, hi again and I hope you have a lovely day!

^ (I've been here a few years but was too nervous to edit much until recently, also been lurking around to see how different people edit different articles & came across this incident) Blue-Sonnet (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blue-Sonnet, thanks for your message. I thought your post on their talk page was well considered; it’s too bad they were just a troll, so your effort was fruitless. Good luck with your future editing! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove other user's comments without good reason. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or modify them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: The other editor is an obvious troll and probably a sockpuppet, you are feeding the troll, and WP:NOTFORUM are very good reasons. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but neither you (or I) are admins. So we do not know, only suspect. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since he was blocked 18 hours before this comment as a sock-puppet, I guess this is your way of saying "Sorry, you were right"? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, as you also removed a comment by a user who is not blocked. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also you removed my comment, are you accusing me of being a troll? Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible to edit an encyclopedia without being able to parse simple sentences? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THen you should have hated, not removed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which I did [10] which you then proceeded to whine about here [11] and damage [12], because you lack the basic competence to be policing these things. I accept your apology; don’t do it again; and now that your troll-feeding and tag-damaging has finally been handled correctly, leave me alone. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see others have complained about edit warring. Let me inform you of WP:HOUND since you reverted me on one article then followed me to the afd. Logoshimpo (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should read it. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
A talk page discussion is ongoing at Talk:Empty_string#"you. Please participate. BusterD (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as done at Empty string.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  BusterD (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: I think you are confused about who has done what, and when. (Maybe this is in part because you didn’t see my comments on the talk-page from Jan 21 (UTC), which Maproom [inadvertently?] deleted, but which I’ve since restored.) Also obviously it’s grossly inappropriate to block for edit-warring after a warning when the edit-warring did not continue. Please review the history of the talk-page. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bold statement you’ve added to the article talk-page, given your failure to grasp the basic timeline here! Looking forward to receiving your apology later once you work out what the actual sequence of events was. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's always somebody else's fault, apparently. BusterD (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: this response is very confused and not vaguely similar to anything I’ve written; please review the history of the article talk-page to see what happened, including the (presumably inadvertent) removal of some of my comments before you arrived there. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I mean once you figure out that I had already commented before you “alerted me to the discussion”, surely then you will understand your very straightforward error?) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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).

100.36.106.199 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Astonishing that I have to go through this just because of the incompetence of one admin, but: here is the sequence of events that led to this block: # Low-level edit-warring took place at Empty string, with the last edit (a revert, by me) at 10:55 UTC January 21 # Discussion was initiated at Talk:Empty string (not by me) at 04:04 UTC January 21 # I participated in the discussion with edits from 10:54 to 11:07 UTC January 21 # User:Maproom erased my comments, presumably inadvertently, at 13:56 UTC January 21 # BusterD left me a warning template at 16:15 UTC January 21 # I commented on the article talk-page at 11:31 UTC January 22 # BusterD blocked me for edit-warring at 11:43 UTC January 22, leaving this incoherent justification I mean really what can one even say about this? Obviously once I am unblocked, if it's not by BusterD with an apology (but they have had multiple opportunities to WP:AGF and correct their clear error), then this is going to WP:AARV to ask that BusterD be formally admonished. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only as this IP is no longer blocked. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

The edit history of Talk:Empty string shows that I did indeed erase 100's contribution. This was certainly not my intention, and I apologise for my incompetence. Maproom (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Thanks, I appreciate the apology—your edit has all the appearance of a delayed edit-conflict, so I was surprised but not offended. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AARV is not for seeking admonishment or sanctions(that's WP:AN) but simply to determine if an action was proper. Sanctions for a single mistake(if that's what this is) are unlikely unless you can show a consistent pattern of behavior. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want sanctions I want a clear acknowledgment from the relevant community that this action (and the follow-on interaction) was inappropriate (both these things are obvious)—AARV is certainly appropriate to that task, whether or not you want to apply some jargon interpretation of the word “admonish”. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the moment, I was responding to 100.36.106.199's continuing (at 10:55) to insert their version while the subject was still under discussion at talk (they had commented at 10:54 and again at 11:00). Even now (after the talk page blanking was restored) I see no indication in page talk or on 100.36.106.199's talk that the disagreement is a settled matter. In fact I had every reason to believe 100.36.106.199 would continue to insert their preferred version before the discussion's conclusion, since they done so once already. When reverting, 100.36.106.199's condescending edit summaries disparaging of User:Logoshimpo ("you have no idea what you’re talking about", "not how WP:BRD works, actually") made it apparent 100.36.106.199 was not assuming good faith from Logoshimpo. I'll note 100.36.106.199's comments towards me on this talk also tend to characterize me as an adversary, which is not the case. I have no interest in the specific outcome of this dispute; as a user trusted with advanced permissions, I am interested in stopping and correcting what is clearly bad behavior, and 100.36.106.199 reapplying their version while talk discussion was ongoing met that criteria. BusterD (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: Do you seriously not understand that my last edit to the article happened *before you warned me* and *more than 24 hours before you blocked me*? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first error. If you'd made a reasonable appeal to me, instead of making consistently condescending statements like those above, I might have been more willing to read further. Your persistent dismissive tone caused me to think dismissively about your comments. This was my second error. Your actions made me think I was dealing with disrupter, and I'm still not sure my initial assessment (based on a large quantity of warnings I saw on your talk) was incorrect. If I made a mistake in this case, I'll take the hit. I'll also point out your behaviors here have not covered you with glory either. BusterD (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please go reread my immediate response to the block and imagine what would have happened if you had applied WP:AGF when I (correctly and politely!) suggested that you might be confused about the sequence of events. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing that you still haven’t unblocked me! Just incredible assholery to not have fixed this situation, which is entirely a result of your incompetence and dismissiveness when the error was pointed out! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: you seem to be interested in this kind of situation. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean tell me again which of us suffers from the problem of it always being someone else’s fault? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree your condescending attitude and desire for a figurative public tarring and feathering isn't helping this matter. You make more friends with honey than vinegar. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced the block. You still refuse to take any responsibility for this situation. I have admitted error. You haven't. BusterD (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my mea culpa (emphasis in bold, for your convenience): I engaged in low-level edit-warring, which I shouldn't have done but which ended before you were involved. Then you blocked me inappropriately. Then I pointed this out to you reasonably politely. Then you were a complete dick to me. Since then indeed 331dot is correct that I have been intemperate but what exactly do you expect under the circumstances? Tell me which part of WP:ADMINACCT allows you to leave a person blocked due to a clear error on your part, then petulantly blame me for your bad behavior? If there were a policy WP:IPACCT that held me especially responsible to the community then we would be having a different conversation!

@331dot: I do not want a public tarring and feathering, I want BusterD to give a straightforward apology to me for (1) blocking me in error and (2) leaving me blocked long after they either did realize or should have realized that this block was in error. Perhaps you could spend some of your talk-page replies giving advice to the person who used their powers in an unambiguously wrong way and then was unpleasant when this was pointed out, rather than the (admittedly, quite aggrieved and annoyed) person who was harmed by this! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are frankly acting like you were put in Wikipedia jail and the key was thrown away. A mistake was made. We're all humans here, it happens. Sure, it's annoying, but is this all really worth the aggrivation you're putting yourself through? 331dot (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I was not aggravated when a mistake was made, I became aggravated after I was treated poorly by the person who made the mistake. To err is human; to act like a jerk, refuse to apologize, and delay correcting the error until many hours after realizing it is a violation of WP policy. I think it is a shame that you have decided that I'm the person who needs counsel, rather than the person who has actually caused the problem. Yes the block was only one day; if it had been a week or a month, would you take exactly the same attitude? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that. I hope it’s nothing bad-serious, and I look forward to your response when you have time. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was somewhat serious. I do some caregiving and things got complicated when my friend came back from travel. Everyone's fine now; I just have been unable to spend much time at keyboard. BusterD (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I expect to belabor this with 100.36.106.199 over time, but in a constructive way I hope.

1. I made several errors in dealing with this ip user. All of these errors are my responsibility because I either read the information incorrectly, or failed to verify the information I was reading was correct. I must concede part of my mistake was in my occasional failure to assume good faith from ip contributors. Further, I failed to admit and correct my errors when they were pointed out to me.

2. I took a day after I was called on my mistake to read up about 100.36.106.199's editing history in an attempt to make myself feel better after the block. This was a waste of time, not because 100 hadn't made errors, but because those errors hadn't forced my mistake. I acted rashly without reading completely. And I came around to the fact that my block of 100, while arguable, wasn't justified. They were correct; I owed them an amends.

3. Real life intervened and prevented me for getting on wiki for several days. This was a sort of blessing. I was wrong and had to rethink my process. I couldn't simply use words to make the situation go away. Meanwhile I had a significant situation occur with a friend which helped me prioritize what is truly important.

4. Saying I'm sorry is IMHO an insignificant gesture. I came to the situation after reading 100's Teahouse request (which I'll intentionally not link here), which made me think I might be dealing with an ip disrupter. My warning was proper, but my block had no basis, since they hadn't edited the article since my warning. They were talking in the talk page thread. I failed to assume good faith from 100.36.106.199. I butted in by appearing to take a side, instead of merely keeping the peace.

5. I have made my share of mistakes as a wikipedian. I'll concede my total blocks since requesting the permission totals less than 200. I didn't become an admin to block people. I'm not great at it and I'm only beginning to give myself permission to do it. I'm now required to take this incident as a life lesson. I'm also going to take this opportunity to bug 100 about my blocks in the future. Both of us could stand to look more closely at our behaviors on en.wiki. I hope that in the future 100.36.106.199 will agree to converse with me from time to time about what constitutes a reasonable block. BusterD (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BusterD, thanks very much for this thorough and thoughtful reply. It would be an honor to be consulted from time to time in the future. (As is clear from a glance at my contributions, my editing can be sporadic, so let me apologize in advance if I am sometimes slow in response.) I agree that my behavior here is not always exemplary. And I’m glad to hear (above) that your IRL situation ended up ok. Look forward to seeing you ‘round! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Giri Trading Agency Private Limited. I saw the unblock request, did my reading, and declined to unblock, and removed tpa. Comments? BusterD (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me just say that I am genuinely touched that you are following through on this.

On one hand I think it's worthwhile to be tolerant of new editors who can't figure out the difference between a rename request and an unblock request. On the other hand I have extremely low tolerance for ChatGPT-generated BS. As a non-admin I can't see what the original promotional thing they were blocked for was, but presuming it was what it sounds like, combined with the evident self-contradicting chat-bot usage, it's hard to imagine this person ever contributing usefully to an encyclopedic project. So no complaints from me! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This first one was a softball. I'm going to run into less clear situations. Just want you on deck, so to speak. Thanks for indulging me. You have a manner of speaking bluntly, and I value your willingness, especially when you and I might not agree. BusterD (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome and thank you! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today AfD participant (and page creator) User:Newatlascamels pinged me to their procedure. My first reading did not impress me. This was my somewhat snippy reply. I don't like to be snippy, so I asked myself, why so snippy? Who was the pinger, anyway? Guess what? BusterD (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is super weird. Among the many other suspicious things about that account and it's behavior is the sequence of events in which they create the page Aave as a redirect to African-American Vernacular English, then precisely one week later we get [13] and [14] in order one minute apart. I don't have much experience but it seems hard to imagine this is anything other than paid editing, right? One thing I haven't understood is why they pinged you in the first place? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for befriending me with your trust. Your eyes made a difference this time and we actually caught a bad guy in the process. You have my limited permission to snark all you want, so long as you do it in the continuing service of assuming good faith. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks very much! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tarlby. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Big Thumpus is limited to article space that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably shouldn't have templated you.

In response to this, that comment feels quite mean whether or not it's directed to someone who'll be banned or even when you're right. Maybe turn down the snarkyness just a bit? Thanks. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Please make an account by the way. Identification would be a lot easier :) ) Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarlby, thanks for your message (especially the human part); snark is a character flaw I’m working on (mixed results so far; tone is hard). I appreciate this as a good model of saying the same thing with the snark toned down. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Sedevacantism, you removed Although historically sedevacantism... which was not tagged with a {{cn}}, but did not remove the Sedevacantism#Early proponents which has been tagged since July 2023. What about the unsourced "Consecrated before Vatican II" and "Groups" sections? Also "Positions within sedevacantism" relying on too many primary sources? Adakiko (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adakiko: It is difficult to treat your complaints as totally serious, given the relevant sequence of events. I removed some uncited content from the lead of an article that was not a reflection of anything in the body of the article (per MOS:INTRO). There is no Wikipedia policy or social norm that requires a person removing unsourced content from one part of an article to also remove all other unsourced content from the article; more generally there is no rule that when fixing one problem it is necessary to fix all other problems. Meanwhile, your revert introduced unsourced content that had been objected to (a violation of WP:BURDEN), added content to the lead that was not represented in the body (a violation of MOS:INTRO), and also reverted edits I'd made that were in keeping with MOS:SEEALSO, all with the inexplicable edit summary "rv MOS:SEEALSO". Instead of the passive aggressive lecture you've given me here, it would have been better to say "Hey, sorry about that, I read the diff wrong!" or something else similarly reasonable. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#PGAME_by_User:Kenfree. This is an interesting case because it features gaming for EC permissions by complaining about EC permissions. Not your kind of problem I guess. Would be interested in how you read it. Please avoid commenting there. Thanks as always. BusterD (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this one completely—but I think it was not up my alley really, as you say. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. What can we do about this idiot? Thanks for jumping feet-first into the fray. Cocoa57 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be the more charming of your two accounts. If I have some spare time today (unclear) I will report all of you at WP:ANI. @BusterD and Pbritti: you have at various times offered assistance to me. This concerns a multi-party content disagreement at Aristides de Sousa Mendes with significant behavioral problems from editors on both sides (sockpuppetry on one side, WP:STONEWALLing on the other side, edit-warring all around; there's an RfC on one small part of this that has expired but not been closed). I have been trying to do basic things like make the lead comply with the MOS and focus it on the actual biography of the subject, but it's very difficult. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only use one account and if anyone bothers to investigate it, they will determine that. In the meantime, based on your opening sentence, I'll work on the charm, LOL. :-) Cocoa57 (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into this, 199. In the mean time, @Cocoa57: don't call anyone an idiot. See WP:CIVIL. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. And I appreciate your willingness to help out. :-)Cocoa57 (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pbritti. In the meantime I created Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple_intersecting_behavioral_issues_at_Aristides_de_Sousa_Mendes, but ultimately this will require some competent editors without an axe to grind to clean up, I think. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping; I'm always glad to help you. My first impression is the pagespace looks like a hagiography. The subject seems untouchable to at least one editor. People tend to have extreme feelings about real-life superheroes, which this subject clearly was. He is one of many almost beloved for their bravery. It's natural for people to possess strong personal feelings about (perhaps even mythologize) such figures, especially in retrospect (when their all-too-human qualities may no longer be seen). That's my first take. BusterD (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's kind of a mess -- there's both pretty heavy hagiography and simultaneously someone who wants to maintain basically an attack page. Neither is good, and the combination is way out of my ability to handle. It was very interesting to learn at ANI that Cullen was involved in this at one point (a decade ago); hopefully if editing is turned over to a few editors not invested in one or the other side, things will improve. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, it is light which this sort of disrupter can't abide. Shine that light on everything for which you may provide diffs. BusterD (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to draw your attention to a series of edits that JPratas made to the article on another Portuguese national hero — Humberto Delgado. Like Sousa Mendes, Delgado is remembered for his courage and bravery in standing up to Salazar. And like Navalny's treatment by Putin, Delgado was "disappeared" into the Portuguese prison system and murdered after he had the temerity to challenge Salazar in an election. Have a look at this edit by JPratas that I just found, where he charges Delgado with pro-Hitler sympathies, clearly to besmirch his memory. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humberto_Delgado&diff=636133312&oldid=627921881 Cocoa57 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And one more point... The sources JPratas uses in the Sousa Mendes article that are from former members of Salazar's government (Saraiva, Hall Themido, Fernandes and some others) should be dismissed as the propaganda they are, and not taken seriously. Again, thank you for your efforts! Cocoa57 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a pretty terrible edit. You could bring it up on the ANI discussion if you wanted (but you should be clear when you do so that it's over a decade old). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI is already headed in a positive direction. But it would be good if the Delgado article were included in the "Portuguese 20th century history broadly construed" ban that the administrators are proposing as he is a figure who deserves a more fleshed-out, well documented page. He's hardly known outside of Portugal, but he should be. Cocoa57 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine it wouldn't be covered by such a topic-ban. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I think you're fighting the good fight in the threads above. Bravo Zulu. What do you think of my discussion here? This is a once indef-blocked editor who's IMHO become a goodguy. Feel free to take your time and poke around. Again, please keep your responses on this talk. BusterD (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! It seems I participated in some discussions in parallel with them at Talk:Sinfest, and that we've overlapped in a few discussions on noticeboards; reviewing that, in all cases everything I've seen from them looks quite sensible and thoughtful. Their response to your initial message also inclines me to think well of them. I'm not super familiar with ORCP (I didn't recognize the acronym until I put it in search, although I guess I knew it existed) but I think your encouragement is good; perhaps in some sense someone who was once disruptive but learned how to not be is an ideal candidate (not from a "getting elected" point of view, but in terms of having some additional insight into the complexities of the job). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dude. You and I continue to see things in much the same light. I got to know this fellow under his first screenname; he and I went at each other tooth and nail in discussions about the January 6, 2021 article (at first with naming, which was quite controversial at the time). Since that time I've been remarkably pleased at how much I've learned to tolerate him. We often disagree in ways which tend to enlighten each other. Not so different than yours and my relationship, actually. Even before he was indef blocked, his pagespace work was very strong. BusterD (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been remarkably pleased at how much I've learned to tolerate him lol but yes I know what you mean. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I've got your intention, I should show you a recent fail. I'm not a fan of April 1 on this platform. I think it makes us look juvenile. BusterD (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like Phil Bridger's comment, and Floquenbeam's. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to draw attention to the fact that JPratas has spent years whitewashing the Estado Novo and Salazar in several articles, and that his POV edits aren't limited to the article about Sousa Mendes. You might be aware of this, but I would recommend taking a closer look at some of the main articles, like Estado Novo, António de Oliveira Salazar, and National Union, so you can see it for yourself. His modus operandi there is the same, he has effectively taken ownership of these articles, and removes anything that contradicts his POV, and often uses sources of questionable reliability, while cynically pretending he cares about balance and NPOV. Unfortunately, he has been allowed to get away with it. I had hopes he would eventually behave better, but alas, this wasn't the case.

I appreciate your attempt to hold him accountable. I do support the topic-ban proposal too, but I think at this point a harsher sanction would be warranted. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:B4DA:E64B:AB3B:6D22 (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]