: 1

: 2

: 25

: 2

: 77

: 1

: 91

Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A few things about me: I have been an editor here for about 19 years (first edit), although I only recorded 29 edits between 2011 and 2015. I am also an administrator, which means I have a few extra clean-up tools. I passed my RFA in 2008, back when adminship was truly no big deal. I was an admin from January 2008 to June 2009. I resigned the tools for seven years during a period of mostly minimal editing, but then had them restored in May 2016 when I started editing consistently again. I am bold when it comes to making administrative actions. That said, I will never revert another admin who has undone one of my administrative actions. I mainly edit articles within the Green Bay Packers WikiProject, although I do edit some random articles from time to time. If you need me to reply on another page, or would like to get my attention, please {{Ping}} me. Please feel free to below if you need to contact me. Old messages can be viewed in my archives (I am a quick archiver, so please feel free to unarchive an old message if there needs to be more discussion). Feel free to email me if you need to discuss something private. Please leave me a message here notifying me of your email, as I do not check my Wikipedia email often.    Remember, we are writing an Encyclopedia! Happy editing!

Archives 2007  •  2008  •  2009  •  2010  •  2011 2012  •  2013  •  2014  •  2015  •  2016 2017  •  2018  •  2019  •  2020  •  2021 2022  •  2023  •  2024  •  2025  •  2026 2027  •  2028  •  2029  •  2030  •  2031

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

Hi Gonzo fan2007. Thank you for your work on 2024 NFC Championship Game. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add more sources and footnotes to back up each claim. Please note that self-published sources such as X and Twitter can generally not be used; please find better sources for these claims. Please also establish notability as per wP:NSPORT. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mariamnei, I did not start or write that page. I merely created a redirect based on an AFD discussion. Red0ctober22 was the editor who converted the redirect to an article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. Unfortunately, it seems the system automatically sends it to the original creator. I will send it to them. Thanks and have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gonzo fan2007, looking at the revision history of the article about the Packers–Seahawks rivalry and its protection log, I hope Special:Diff/1333802417 wasn't written with the idea of you performing said block in case that happens? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree, not sure if you have the full understanding of the colorscheme issue with NFL rivalry pages, but we are talking about multiple months of POV pushing, socking, etc. that finally led to all the NFL rivalry pages being semi-protected. I don't have any skin in the game regarding colors and don't consider myself an involved person in the actual content dispute. Rather, I am the admin who has been addressing the issue and trying to get users to discuss changes prior to implementing them. This user has been on my radar since a contentious AFD where their editing during the AFD became disruptive. Seeing that they since have been blocked for edit warring, I don't have a long leash at this point. That said, happy to hear any concerns from you and can dive in a bit with diffs if you need more history. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve always found the semi protection to be excessive, especially without a discussion on protecting it. Could WP:GS be in order for the NFL? ~2026-43640-3 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The rivalry pages may be the worst battlegrounds ever, worse than those about the Arab-Israeli conflict ... it wouldn't be relevant to my concern.

My concern is that you are, for example, the main author of the current state of the article about the Packers–Seahawks rivalry, the person who nominated it for good-article status and improved it based on the reviewer's feedback, made significant editorial decisions about which changes to keep and were still the person to semi-protect the article afterwards, three times and the last one indefinitely because you were "tired" of a specific type of changes that weren't even malicious but "color changes". And part of this dispute, in which at least the latest semi-protection was already an admin action inappropriately performed by an editorially involved user, is edit warring with HarryPotter2011 ([1], [2]). If that continued significantly, you yourself would be at risk of being partially blocked from editing the article. You are miles away from being allowed to block that user.

So please, if their behavior is persistently disruptive, report them to WP:ANI instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, nowhere does our policies state that an admin cannot perform administrative actions on an article that they wrote, nominated to GA, or made editorial decisions on. That would be a somewhat bizarre interpretation of our administrative policies. If anything, I am more likely to perform administrative actions in genres and topics I edit more frequently.

It is important to note I semi-protected every single rivalry page, not just this one. There was nothing specific about this rivalry page, rather a user or set of users that POV pushed, socked, and edited disruptively regarding color schemes, causing frustrating and time-consuming reversions, discussions, etc. These all may not have been "malicious", but they were performed in bad faith. I, and others, were tired of having to police so many articles from so many different accounts/IPs editing disruptively. I don't have any skin in the game regarding rivalry color schemes and honestly don't care much what they are. I'm just enforcing the consensus that color scheme changes need discussion and consensus first. This isn't just to rivalry pages, it has covered infoboxes, template navboxes, and tables.

Regardless, this user has problematic editing patterns and they have been given multiple opportunities to start editing appropriately. If anything, your recent block of them made me feel even stronger that the leash is pretty much up and they need to change their editing habits. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate, your comment And part of this dispute, in which at least the latest semi-protection was already an admin action inappropriately performed by an editorially involved user is way off base. Look at my protection log, I protected these articles before this user in question even started editing and had nothing to do with them. This is bizarre. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally.
— Wikipedia:Protection policy § Content disputes

WP:INVOLVED contains an exception for "minor or obvious edits" but that's not what happened there.

It also doesn't really matter if you performed actions on other pages too – you are editorially involved on that specific article and with that specific user. You have made reverts to preferred color schemes. Users are encouraged to be bold and there is no policy that strictly requires talk page discussion before changing a color. Of course there is WP:EW et cetera, but it doesn't justify your reverts any more than their edits, and you are on one level in this regard viewed administratively. Not in a position above theirs.

When I write "malicious", I do mean "bad faith" or "vandalism". That's not behind most color changes or similar opinion-based edits; everyone just tries to make the article better from their view. This may well be disruptive but it's relatively certainly good-faith editing and does not qualify for exceptions that would allow you to act when normally prohibited, such as those listed at WP:3RRNO or WP:BLPADMINS. The latter section's wording, by the way, even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved, just proves my point about involvement again, from yet another policy.

For the described reasons, yes, your semi-protections were made in a situation where you were already too involved to cleanly make that decision on that specific page. I don't disagree about a potential inherent need to semi-protect pages that have "rivalry" in their title, and my message isn't primarily about the protections, but this isn't bizarre and if you think it is, you may like to ask at WP:AN for others to confirm or correct my view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, the key part of that policy is and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. I am clearly not advancing my own position, as I genuinely don't care about what colors are used to represent the Packers or Seahawks, outside of accessibility issues. This is a contentious editing area, where editors go back and forth on colors based on their own personal whims. It goes back-and-forth and causes a ridiculous waste of time. We can debate whether I should be able to block said user in this case, that's fair. But implying my semi-protection, which was made almost a year ago, was somehow against our protection policy because I edited some of these articles is bizarre. I have never once gone to a rivalry page to push my own color scheme and all of my administrative actions or even reversions have been focused on forcing editors to engage with each other and find consensus before making these changes, both to avoid wasting time with having to go through and revert these changes and to avoid edit wars. I'm not going to be blocking the user at this point, as they stopped, so at this point I would prefer this discussion to end. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]