You all can stop the harassment now; you got your way, you won. I'm trying to disengage, but grandstanding and dancing on my grave isn't making that possible. You abused the process that I was encouraged to pursue and banned me for reporting someone who admitted they were uncivil. Good job. It's with Arbcom now, if they choose to review it.

I doubt anyone will stumble upon this as dissent seems to disappear here, but I'd encourage anyone curious to observe the disruptive editing examples (the claimed reason I was banned) and note that none of them involve the talk page on an ANI ticket which has yet to be resolved. "Campaign to drive away productive contributors", however, is.

About your lodged ANI report, just a friendly reminder that you got a number of response, especially from Liz here & Black Kite here....you might want to know who Black Kite, and more importantly, Liz actually are before you reply to either of them.......seemed there was a recently closed RfC about 1 regional sea a.k.a. 2 national seas Gulf of America/Gulf of Mexico a.k.a. international sea of Gulf of Mexico so the avenue should be reviewing RfC closure rather than dispute resolution, although I would not want to try that, seemed like chances of successful review are pretty low....Ciao....2401:7400:6000:EDB1:50F7:5831:56B4:4BA1 (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. Yeah, the whole thing was a mess, EXTREMELY political, and, I think, the RfC was done incorrectly (RfC guidelines specifically state you should not base things off majority opinions and the person who closed the RfC specifically stated they did so). Agreed it probably wouldn't go anywhere, but, that generally doesn't stop me from trying to do what is the most logical.

At the very least, it was worth discussing. But instead it became an attack on me for disagreeing. Lincoln2020 (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way that this and other similar cases are handled is so severely disappointing. I have absolutely ZERO faith in the administrative system of Wikipedia at this point, the rank-closing is insultingly blatant. Good luck. Big Thumpus (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao and of course, now someone is calling for you to be topic banned. LOL. What a sad state of affairs. Big Thumpus (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Gulf of Mexico. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Weller talk 12:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Doug Weller, can you provide an example?

Thanks! Lincoln2020 (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Doug Weller I’ve asked for an example because, without specific evidence of my "incivility" at Gulf, I’m rather confused. Unless you can point to something concrete, one might assume that this might be retaliation or an intimidation attempt linked to my recent complaint against an editor you’ve collaborated with (per editing histories). I hope that’s not the case. WP:HARASSMENT discourages such actions, and I’d ask you to refrain if it applies. I’m assuming WP:AGF here and welcome clarity to keep this productive. Thanks! Lincoln2020 (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see "why is one side of this argument so unwilling to make any compromise?", " a pretty typical ultra-political push from Wikipedians void of logic or actual efforts to find consensus which destroys people's trust in the platform.", and "If debate were 'allowed', we would, perhaps, be able to more clearly see that one side of this debate has been engaging in abuses of the process to make it appear as though there are valid reasons for their points on the RFC, when in fact they were thinly veiled partisan attacks". Those comments do not demonstrated good faith.

Also, although you say you are assuming good faith, you also mention the possibility that I am harassing you. That page says "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. "

I haven't posted any warnings here before this one. Even if I end up supporting a topic ban against you,. that's not harassment. Doug Weller talk 10:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Reviewing my comments, perhaps they could have been worded better. That said, I believe them all to be accurate and based on the facts present.

"why is one side of this argument so unwilling to make any compromise?" - I think was/is a legitimate question. There has been no compromise on the lead of the article in question.

"a pretty typical ultra-political push from Wikipedians void of logic or actual efforts to find consensus which destroys people's trust in the platform." - this was a response to people calling out the President of the United States as a "fool with an army", etc. I'd say that's pretty political, and evidence has shown Wiki's political bias as left-leaning. "Typical" was indeed a reach based on the actual statistics from the studies, and I'll try to avoid over-generalizing in the future.

"If debate were 'allowed', we would, perhaps, be able to more clearly see that one side of this debate has been engaging in abuses of the process to make it appear as though there are valid reasons for their points on the RFC, when in fact they were thinly veiled partisan attacks" - this was in response to a topic calling anyone who thought like me a villain from 1984. I've admitted elsewhere that it is in fact difficult to stay neutral while being called a fascist. I'd say I'll try to refrain from responding and use the processes wiki gives us to report things like that, but, I'm currently looking like I'm going to be banned because I reported someone for being abusive, lol. Kind of brings all the rest back around full circle doesn't it? Lincoln2020 (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man you're getting completely railroaded over there. Hilarious that the one comment agreeing with you [mine] was deleted. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, Wikipedia is neutral! Lincoln2020 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literally:

"hey this dude called everyone who disagrees with him stupid, IDK, maybe a civility warning is appropriate?"

"how dare you, you must be banned for suggesting such a thing!"

"But I have like...pages of examples ..."

"How dare you take our time with examples!"

It's honestly comical. Lincoln2020 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lmao I mean literally even in the ban request against me is a very thinly veiled insult around my opinions on Gulf. The childish marsupial reference. Lincoln2020 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, such a shame, and not a single administrator willing to break rank. The "you're wasting our time!" thing is such an odd complaint - as Tyler the Creator once said, "just walk away from the screen". Big Thumpus (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Pretty interesting coincidence that none of them were tagged yet they're all showing up. Seems like they're either pretty keen to waste their own time, or were canvassed.

You ever tinkered with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/User_interaction_investigations?

Check out all the interactions between them all. Lincoln2020 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't messed with that tool before - pretty fascinating. They sure do spend a lot of time on ANI and other noticeboards to be telling other editors not to waste time there.

It's also concerning that the focus of your ANI thread has been shifted completely away from Simon's objectively questionable behavior and onto the fact that you reported it. Big Thumpus (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it turns out you're misunderstanding the results of that tool - the frequent interaction between a group of editors who just so happen to all show up at articles about contentious topics and consistently support sanctions against those who disagree with them is actually not a big deal :) Big Thumpus (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them have as little as 12% of their contributions toward actual articles. They definitely don't have a propensity to gang up on people and try to ban them. Especially the ones labeling themselves as "marxist socialists" in their own talk pages. Oof. No bias to see here. The irony of them using 1984 against those they disagree with may be the funniest part. Lincoln2020 (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah I'll point out my own hypocrisy I'm sure my contributions to articles are potentially even lower but only because once I started contributing to Wiki I got pulled into this BS and I'm thinking it's probably not wise to try to contribute to other articles until it's resolved. Lincoln2020 (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what was wise was to spend your time contributing to article rather than raising a fairly baseless complaint at ANI. I had a brief look at your recent contributions to articles and they seemed okay enough that if you'd spend most of your time doing that (along with engaging constructively with your fellow editors when there was disagreement including accepting when consensus was against you) and little of your time raising baseless complaints it's likely everyone would be happy to have you as an editor rather than you now facing a possible topic ban from those contributions, or maybe even site ban from all contributions. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While looking at the closed AN I noticed something I felt worth breaking my suggestion at ANI of it being final reply. But I'll bring it here since it's at the closed AN. You said "We should hold ourselves to higher standards than grade schoolers, should we not?". But the reality is, it's fairly complicated. The context of what you're referring to seemed to be a grade schooler in school getting into trouble. And there are many things which will get a grade schooler into trouble at least in I think most schools, but where it's complicated on Wikipedia or even unlikely point blank for the editor to get in trouble. For example, it's accepted that saying "fuck off" to someone isn't always sanctionable. By comparison, I'm fairly sure there are far few cases when a grade schooler is not going to get in trouble for saying "fuck off" to someone in school when it's heard by someone in charge (or there is a complaint), when it's not a joke or something accepted among friends. (Frankly I think in many schools even if it's a joke or accepted among friends, a grade school is going to get in trouble if someone in charge hears it whereas that's definitely not the case here.) For those with various developmental differences or neurodiversity they might be okay since it's understood they might not be able to understand it in the same way that it's not something they should be saying or cannot control it in the same way. Likewise in extreme cases and I mean way more extreme cases than would be accepted here, like someone just found out a family member or friend was injured or something like that. In other words, we're in very different environments so it's actually very complicated what is and isn't acceptable in each one. There are some cases where we might have a "higher standard" but there are other cases where this applies to the grade school. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

evidence has shown Wiki's political bias as left-leaning. "Typical" was indeed a reach based on the actual statistics from the studies, and I'll try to avoid over-generalizing in the future. I'd be really interested in seeing that "evidence" and "actual statistics" because I don't think they exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Twain was of course correct in that there are 3 types of lies (lies, damned lies, and statistics), a tertiary review reveals pretty solid methodology. Like I said in the post though, I do admit "typical" was an overreach, the results aren't extreme. I can and do try to admit when I use something other than reason to come to a conclusion or make a statement.

Although, to be fair, they did not dig at all into the banning of people who raise complaints against, or simply disagree with (shout out to @Big Thumpus), admittedly (based on their own user page) extreme left editors :').

https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased Lincoln2020 (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under all other circumstances I'd probably enjoy discussing this with you, as I think it's a very important topic. The core mission of the project is very dear to me. The world needs an easily accessible source of infinite wisdom. But that wisdom must be 'open source', in that enough people from varying backgrounds must be able to contribute in good faith so actual consensus can be made and the nearest thing to the truth can be published.

I'm actually rather middle of the road (see my, I think valuable, clarity given on Vance/Zelensky conversations), I just don't like bullies. Could I have dropped the stick? Sure. But the horse wasn't dead; in fact, more horses were coming to kick the guy with the stick, who was the sole man in the arena with a bunch of angry horses who all have a concerning history voting to ban the same people who happen to be politically opposed (or perceived to be opposed) to their stated beliefs. When you're the only guy with a stick being kicked by a bunch of horses, you shouldn't drop it. (I'll drop the stick on that analogy now)

-Contentious Gulf of Mexico page

-Probably not correct RfC

-DRN

-DRN Closed Likely Inappropriately

-Opened complaint. You noted DRN closure was odd.

-Complaint closed. No resolution, wrong forum. You noted outstanding issues.

-Complaint opened in the right place.

-WP:CABAL pile on, double boomerangs (can't make up how accurate the double boomerang page nailed it), uh, I guess a triple boomerang?, and a site ban. For reporting an inappropriate action closing my DRN and some rather insulting comments (I don't insult easily, those comments are objectively insulting and not civil).

I'm still holding the stick, I guess. I'm right ("editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right"), the punitive measures taken are wrong, it's not disruptive to comment on your own open case, and it's important enough to this Project to fight for. “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” - JSM, On Liberty Lincoln2020 (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your comment since further discussion would lead to Big Thumpus being blocked as yet another topic ban violation. Please keep the issue to the open thread. Star Mississippi 16:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how adding my 2 cents in on what appears to be similar bullying tactics against @Big Thumpus could get them banned. To the contrary, I believe pointing the below facts out added needed context to his complaint. In fact, rather ironically, the entire point was that it seemed like people just delete comments that counter their points. In fact, you claimed nobody agreed with me in your inappropriate site ban (majority rules isn't the guidance of a site ban, as my unban request will show). But that wasn't quite true, was it? The one person who did agree with me had their post deleted. How many others were thus discouraged from posting, for fear of retribution? Retaliation and censorship have a chilling effect.

Then again I didn't see how reporting someone for clearly inappropriate commentary in good faith could lead to me getting banned, and yet here we are.

":Some extremely important background:

• • I opened a DRN for a contentious topic related to AP2.
  • The DRN was then shut down (in my belief incorrectly and as an attempt to silence).
  • An editor who made many inappropriate political remarks against anyone who disagreed with them followed me to my talk page, and threatened me there.
  • I complained about it.
  • Big Thumpus saw my complaint. He noted that the person who edited my talk page was also present on their ban discussion, along with practically every one else who has since sided with the editor who I reported.
  • His comment was deleted.

  My opinion:

  • The deletion was not warranted, as the topic had nothing to do with WP:Content, and only WP:Conduct, including making threats on my talk page, which was completely unrelated to any content whatsoever.

  Lincoln2020 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)""[reply]

Per my closure of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Intimidation_tactics,_suppression_and_other_violations_from_Simonm223, you have been site banned by the community. While this is not mandatory, demonstrating a productive history of editing elsewhere will be a positive for if and when you appeal. Star Mississippi 01:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is such an incredibly good example of why retaliating against whistleblowers is literally illegal in the real world. Shameful display by The Community™. Big Thumpus (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except they aren't a whistleblower and this wasn't retaliation. If they'd taken the advice of other editors early on in that discussion then we wouldn't be here. They choose to disregard advice and maintained the attitude that they were right and everyone else was wrong. TarnishedPath^talk 02:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thumpus, your comments are not aiding Lincoln. A site ban need not be permanent. But you are pushing them in the wrong direction. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, site bans are a last resort. This was not a "last resort" situation, and an editor winding up indefinitely banned from the entire site for bringing another editor's objectively questionable behavior to ANI is abysmal optics at the very least. I don't expect Lincoln to ever feel comfortable returning to Wikipedia after being treated this way. Big Thumpus (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Thumpus, I think you are partially responsible here for what has happened. On this User talk page, you encouraged them to keep fighting against consensus while other editors were advising them to drop the stick and move on which is what eventually caused them to be blocked. At some point, all of us disagree with the consensus but if you want to continue to edit here, you need to accept that and go back to editing constructively instead of fighting windmills. This isn't a game of "last man standing", it's a collaborative editing project, sometimes you argue and are in the minority and sometimes, you are in the majority. It's the nature of the platform. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, with respect, we both know that The Consensus of a relatively small but very vocal group of editors who just so happen to collectively spend a lot of time at ANI pushing for bans on people who just so happen to express similar opinions to Lincoln is not representative of en.wikipedia as a whole. The sad part is that administrators are supposed to be the ones who understand that and apply it in their actions.

And in fairness I think your comment above, poking an indefinitely site-banned editor, is pretty inappropriate. Big Thumpus (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus Lincoln2020 was pushing against was not the consensus to ban them. I mean they obviously opposed that but that wasn't what got them banned. They consensus they kept opposing was the consensus not to include Gulf of America in the lead. While consensus decisions aren't simple vote counts since you said it was small, we can look at the numbers. By my count, there were 80 plus editors who opposed this. It was not a small but vocal group of editors. I'm fairly sure quite a few of them barely edit American politics and some of them are I think barely even editors. It's the sort of numbers very rare for RfC and often comes from off-site attention which given consensus isn't a vote count isn't actually a good thing. (I didn't count the supports but someone near the end suggested it was under 40.) Even the moratorium was just closed with evidentially 32 editors supporting one of some length. (I assume I was counted as support, but note I only supported one on a RM rather than the lead which was Lincoln2020's focus.) Even this number is I'm fairly sure not that common for RfCs, most get less. By no means were these decided by a small but vocal group of editors at least in wikipedia terms. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne Lincoln2020's forum shopping likely got some eyes on the moratorium discussion. It certainly got mine there. TarnishedPath^talk 12:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the rules and recommendations of admins. I did not want to change forums. I did not shop forums.. Your obsessive assault on WP:AGF and WP:Harassment would be banworthy in a fair world. Lincoln2020 (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln2020, please be more civil. I get that you are very frustrated by things, but you should not be trying to antagonize another user. You can lose the ability to post on your talk page, which makes it even more difficult to eventually appeal a block. Please agree to consider following WP:UNBAN and the last sentence of WP:SBAN: The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below.

Regarding the forum shopping comment, you are a newer user, but we have a policy called WP:FORUMSHOP. From my perspective, what FORUMSHOP refers to is trying to find a new avenue for a discussion that has already been resolved. In your case, you tried bring the RfC to DRN, which wasn't applicable as the RfC resolved the content dispute and the RfC cannot be overturned at DRN. You then took it to AN, which got closed for at least two reasons unrelated to bring up the DRN. You then took it to ANI, which was the problem. While bringing up issues with another editor was fine, it wasn't fine the multiple times you tried to have the RfC overruled. (I don't know if you ever read it, but WP:CLOSECHALLENGE explains how you appeal the closure of an RfC. It also warns in a sub-section: Users who try to subvert consensus by appealing to other venues than WP:AN should be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP.)

Hopefully this clears this part of the discussion up. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to clarify? Is your reading of those rules (Which I see as restrictive, agreed there), that I can't/shouldn't respond to inappropriate and misleading personal attacks WP:CIVIL on my own talk page? It seems to me like that strict reading would allow for goading, trolling, and grandstanding, which is what their comments feel like. All of that's fine, but a response to say keep it civil is not. These rules, if this interpretation is accurate, are a little ... cruel ... are they not? The 90% of those who voted to ban me who also voted against the RfC I tried unsuccessfully to challenge in the DRN (like I've mentioned elsewhere, silly me, assuming dispute resolution was for dispute resolution [yes I agree with your reading of the AN process, I was unaware of it and those who bullied me in DRN didn't mention it]) got their way. Is dancing on my grave on my talk page appropriate?

Also, should the rules apply if the ban clearly broke the 72 hour minimum open timeframe rule? In other words, the rules apply to me but nobody else - not even admins who should be held to higher standards?

For what it's worth, no matter what happens, I feel pretty vindicated since for the first time that I've seen, Simonm223 has admitted wrongdoing. Notice I haven't brought up the other editor once, and in fact forgot their name, because they acknowledged fault and apologized right away. This would have been over with, except, instead of focusing on the clearly (and self-admitedly) inappropriate tone/comments by Sim, the community found it more convenient to silence someone they disagreed with. :)

[1] Lincoln2020 (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated but it's important to remember as you have a site ban, you have very very limited editing rights here which doesn't apply to other editors. You should only be using your talk page to appeal your ban which would include trying to understand why it happened and how you need to change your editing to convince the community it's no longer needed but will not include continuing disputes with other editors no matter if they are justified. Although it would IMO be fine to ask an editor to not post on your talk page anymore without any other comment just as an editor in good standing can. Also I'd suggest that the thread which resulted in your ban suggests your views of what is and isn't uncivil etc is out of line with the communities. As for your suggestion it would allow editors to goad you etc, no, WP:GRAVEDANCING is not tolerated and if another editor feels someone has cross the line they'll tell them to stop and if the continue sanction is likely. Your talk page is clearly fairly well watched at this time. This is perhaps another important point to remember, it doesn't always have to be you to deal with a problem, sometimes it's better to let others deal with it if it's likely they can handle it better. And on that note, I'll bow out of further comment with you unless you ping me for some reason. Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I perhaps should have said, 'what is and isn't uncivil etc and what is enough of a problem to warrant action etc, is out of line with the communities'. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting confusion between you, Liz and Big here. I think the consensus Liz is talking about was consensus around Simonm223's improper behavior. However I'll strongly assert no such consensus was made. My post remained open and 90% of the conversation became an attempt to frame me as a forum shopper like what TarnishedPath is still doing (talk about not dropping the stick; continuing to malign someone who's already banned on their own talk page). I don't see how you can be "disruptive" enough for a site ban on your own administrative complaint which was turned against you and improperly closed in under 24 hours.

Nil I think anyone would have a very, very difficult case to make that I didn't drop the stick at Gulf, since I left that discussion and never looked back. I attempted to bring in an arbiter through NPM. I ultimately got banned for maintaining that it was the right thing to do and refusing to back down (in a non-abusive way, within the proper confines of the system built for dispute. If a consensus was found and ruled on and Simonmn's behavior was deemed pristine, I would have been done.). Lincoln2020 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read my above reply about UNBAN and SBAN as it still will apply. That said, to clarify what went wrong, part of the issue was not dropping the stick regarding the DRN discussion at ANI. You mentioned wanted the DRN discussion restored, despite DRN not being the place to handle overturning an RfC. (That would be AN in a Close Review.) Part of it was not handling the TBAN discussion that well. (If you disagree, then fine, but I am looking back at a number of users giving warning that the line was being crossed.) Finally, part of it was just replies that crossed Failure or refusal to "get the point" and Righting great wrongs. (Again, you might disagree, but both of these were mentioned during the ANI discussion.)

Hopefully you can take a break from Wikipedia for a bit and come back in a few months with a fresh perspective of what happened and attempt to rejoin edition non-contentious topics. Please review Standard offer and Template:2nd chance as the policy does explain how you can potentially get unbanned while the template might end up being relevant. Note that the standard offer considers edits made to by yourself to this talk page as restarting the clock. (Just as a reminder, you have a community ban. You cannot use an Unblock Request to get unbanned as it wasn't a block. If that doesn't make sense, then to quote the Wikipedia:Blocking policy: Blocking is different from banning, which is a formal retraction of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Blocks disable a user's ability to edit pages; bans do not. However, bans may be enforced by blocks; users who are subject to a total ban, or who breach the terms of a partial ban, will most likely be site-wide blocked to enforce the ban. Basically, there is a difference between a block and a ban here with bans being more serious overall.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarity on processes. This is what a great response to my DRN would have looked like, rather than the threats I received. Lincoln2020 (talk) 12:26, 4 March 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).

Lincoln2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Oh boy. What an interesting turn of events. To spare the reviewer; TLDR, this is ridiculous. Ok now the long version.

Background:

1. The Gulf of Mexico talk page was an unmitigated disaster.

2. There was an RfC, likely done inappropriately. It wasn't logged properly so far as I could tell in the RfC boards, and, as per the closing comments themselves, it was based on a majority count, rather than the merits of arguments. ("but they were vastly in the minority" This is specifically mentioned in WP:TALKDONTREVERT consensus guidance as inappropriate.

3. A "Moratorium on this nonsense" was created by Simonmn223.

4. The "Moratorium on this nonsense" implied that anyone who disagreed with the author was a literal fascist from 1984. Given the author's self proclaimed support of Marxist Socialism on their own user page, this language is objectively in line with their other political biases, detailed at length below. Their moratorium uncivally calling everyone else's opinion nonsense is here "Moratorium on this nonsense: I think we're going to be stuck fielding whatabouts from the people who erroneously believe that the United States should be allowed to rewrite reality like O'Brien from 1984 for a very long time if we don't start aggressively clerking this page."

5. Note the threat to "aggressively clerk", with emphasis not added by myself on "aggressive"

6. The RfC was being used as a cudgel in the moratorium conversation, trying to dissuade anyone from speaking about why they thought the moratorium shouldn't pass.

7. Because of the way the RfC was handled, I thought dispute resolution should be used to, well, resolve a dispute. Who would have thought that dispute resolution was in fact not the right place to resolve a dispute. WP:DRN "This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia" (newbie, silly me for that assumption)

8. My DRN request was closed before I knew what happened. As a new editor, it took me a while to figure it out.

9. It was closed with malice. The person who closed it snarkily commented and attacked me. They broke the rules of DRN. which is to attempt to help people, to be civil, etc. They apologized later, so they're not named here. Simonmn223 simultaneously took to my talk page to unsubtly threaten me. They did so with extreme snark and thinly veiled threats to get me banned (referencing the other post and strongly (emphasis theirs) suggesting I stop trying to correct the RfC errors (major 'or else' vibes).

-All from WP:DRN:

--"Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants."

--"Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute."

--"Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers"

10. I made a complaint. An admin quickly commented that they believed the DRN closure was odd.

11. The AN request was closed. No resolution, wrong forum. An admin noted issues were outstanding and if I felt inclined, the other admin forum was more appropriate.

12. The Complaint was opened in the right place; I then tried an ANI request (click at your own risk, maybe read the rest of this first).

13. Because I went from DRN > AN > ANI (for reasons above - NOT forum shopping), people accused me of forum shopping, even though the first editor to comment noted that I was not.

14. Because I was 'forum shopping', 'sea lioning', etc., in their eyes, I was threatened with boomerang (note the inappropriate use of boomerang as a threatening tool) despite having no original actions worthy of reporting

15. Someone recommended a topic ban. This very topic ban was - I can't express this enough - EXACTLY what wp:mutualboomerang uses as an example "Don't ignore Bob's bad behavior while rushing to be the first to tell Alice that her angry response to Bob's provocation is going to boomerang on her." (I'm Alice, Simonmn223 is Bob, and Robert, tarnishedpath, and others are the people throwing a mutual boomerang).

16. A user, @Big Thumpus, who had claimed to have been attacked by the same person as me, said so on my post. His comment was removed because he had a content ban, despite my post being a conduct post. I almost didn't see this, and almost missed it. Almost to a person, the same people who voted to ban him were now piling on me. WP:CABAL There are others. The overlap is actually massive, and I'm doing more research on this (one of the overlap wiki tools is broken but my tertiary analysis has shown a large overlap, usually seconds or minutes between posts on admin forums and talk pages, etc, between most of the votes to ban me.

17. I noted that it was interesting that so many who had gathered all happened to be the same people who gathered on a number of political bans, generally if not always on the same side. I asked if COI would be appropriate to state. I tried maintaining AGF etc. here. It became a bit much and overwhelming.

18. The same admin who has been communicating repeatedly with @Big Thumpus was the one to ban me. In fact they also deleted a comment of mine on Big Thumpus's talk page. That comment, I think, added important context. They stated they banned me based on a majority-rules approach, which, like with the RfC, is clearly against the guidelines of WP:TALKDONTREVERT. They even said they did so because nobody else commented in my defense (well ... conveniently, the person who did had their comment removed!)

I ask to be unbanned. Even the person who banned me stated that some of my other contributions to the project could have been valuable. They would be. As noted in my above comment to Liz, I think it's important that wikipedia is a neutral place. I also think it's vitally important that people are allowed to report what they see as bad behavior.

It would have been simple to say "Lincoln, we have reviewed what you wrote, but don't think it's uncivil". Instead, they said "Lincoln2020 has thrown a boomerang at a kangaroo that isn't there, because kangaroos don't swim in the Gulf of Mexico.". That was actually what they opened up my ban with, while ignoring the behavior of "Bob". They accused me of being a time sink even though it wasn't me who decided to keep moving my original complaint (it also wasn't me issuing threats). It also wasn't me who forced them to go to ANI when they could have walked away. It also wasn't me who forced them to spend just 12% of their time on articles, like the person who turned my own report around on me has done.

I had an open complaint. I wasn't relitigating, I wasn't spamming, I wasn't harassing. Did I stand up for myself? Yes. Did I say it seemed like a setup? Sure did (it does).

Well. Their threats came true. I've been 'silenced'. I do not believe that have broken any rules. I believe that my edits were clearly not "disruptive editing". WP:ICANTHEARYOU refers to bringing up disputes "long after consensus has been decided". "Consensus" (via a decision on my post) was not made. Also, I'd argue that even ICANTHEARYOU applies primarily to articles. I was commenting on my own open complaint!!

My ban was only in response to the comments I made on my original ANI post, after being guided there from AN, after my DRN was closed. I followed the processes, and, I believe, I have the right to stand up for myself and reply on my own complaint. Again; the complaint was not closed, I did not reopen it, I did not follow or harass anyone elsewhere. I clearly think that WP:DE is inappropriate.

I have remained civil. I just had a different opinion. And as such, I was silenced. As John Stuart Mill states: “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Thank you for your consideration Lincoln2020 (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you are banned, not just blocked, no admin can unilaterally lift the ban, it would require a community discussion, and this request just relitigates the discussion that resulted in the ban, so I see no cause to bring this statement to the community. Note that Wikipedia is a private entity that can theoretically keep you from using its services for any reason or even no reason- just as you can set rules for your residence or deny entry to anyone you wish for any reason or no reason; I can't enter your residence against your will and force you to hear my views on a topic. All that said, however, there is very good reason to ban you, to prevent the disruption caused by your editing. You were not "silenced" for your opinion, you were banned for your behavior. Actions have consequences. You are free to stand on a street corner and give your views on any topic or to start your own newspaper and publish them, you are not free to force Wikipedia to hear or publish your views- which you already did extensively, it was beating us over the head with them that resulted in the ban. I see no pathway forward if you just ask to have the ban removed; you may be able to limit the ban to post-1992 American politics if you can convince the community that you will be a productive contributor in other topics that will arouse less passion in you. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 3 March 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.

Planned to post this before the appeal was declined, I'll leave part of it anyway. I don't know if this will help since it doesn't seem anything else has. OTOH, I think I'm one of the few in that thread who never expressed support for any sanction against you. And possibly also the only one to partly oppose the moratorium and to say they thought the consensus to exclude mention from the lead is probably wrong. So perhaps it'll be better received than coming from most other editors who've engaged with you. You said "some of my other contributions to the project could have been valuable". IMO, for any appeal to succeed, you're going to need to convince the community you will spend your time on these contributions rather than on what you largely spent it on leading up to the ban. Your (previous) appeal doesn't do that. I suggest you also read WP:NOTTHEM. You'll also need to convince the community you'll be better able to accept when consensus is against you since even if you edit in a less contentious areas there are bound to be cases when this happens. It happens to all of us. As I said, although I didn't look that well at the evidence, my feeling is the consensus to exclude from the lead was wrong. Finally since this is a community ban, IMO convincing the community to reconsider no matter how well worded your appeal is likely to be difficult anytime soon. In fact although your account is still very new and you haven't socked or anything AFAIK, you probably should still just take the WP:Standard offer and wait at least 6 months before any appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: your point 2: I absolutely did not close that RfC based on majority count.

I wrote: Most cogent policy reasons were given by those opposing this addition, including that mentioning this in the lead gives it undue weight in the article, that it's too soon to know what effect this renaming will have, that this is an encyclopedia and not the news, and that this represents a recentism bias. A few supports made policy-related arguments that including this in the lead was not giving undue weight, but they were vastly in the minority. You are misunderstanding policy: closer doesn't have to completely ignore numbers. They just can't simply consider numbers but must focus on strength of arguments. In this case almost all valid arguments were against inclusion at this time, and very few valid arguments were for inclusion.

Additionally, the policy arguments for inclusion were "It's not UNDUE". Which is where opinion comes in: vastly more people said it was UNDUE than said it was DUE. Closer can consider that.

You've stated this in several places, and I am telling you as clearly as I can that your interpretation both of policy and of what I said is incorrect. I try to be patient with new editors who don't understand policy, but please don't make that statement again. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and clarification of how you see the rules and that majority wasn't a major factor. TBH I think I misread "Most cogent policy" as "Most of the" and you meant it as "The most".

That said I'm really kind of ... concerned? Surprised? That so many people make statements around having a lack of patience and asking people not to say things they disagree with. At least you said please though!! lol. In my opinion (perhaps I'm sensitive, in fact, I know I'm being over sensitive right now) when people are saying they're losing patience, it comes of as threatening. As for "don't make that statement again" ... ugh. First, I honestly hope you don't feel attacked by the times I've mentioned I thought the RfC wasn't closed out right, because that's not my intent, it's not personal, I just thought it was premature (despite the large number) and other reasons stated. Perhaps the moratorium was more premature. I wanted to step back and have admins take a look and weigh in.

At any rate, I appreciate the other 99% of what you said and I can see where you're coming from, and honestly may even agree. But what if I didn't? What if I thought your interpretation was incorrect? Why must I agree, else not utter my disagreement? Maybe you didn't mean it in the same way, but I do think others have meant it that way (and it's usually been accompanied with ban threats), and, well, I feel like that's a big part of why I'm now banned. Fresh wounds and all.

I would have loved to have had a cogent conversation about this with you (and I thought DRN the proper place to have a logical conversation around it). I never was afforded that opportunity. Thanks V. Lincoln2020 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In non-contentious topics, editors tend to have a lot of patience with new editors who don't understand policy. In contentious topics -- and right now GoM/GoA is extremely contentious, so much that we've had to protect the talk page, which is highly unusual -- not so much, because experienced editors are already expending so much of their time and energy on actually valid arguments. Having to deal with invalid arguments from sometimes dozens or hundreds of new editors who don't understand policy can be very wearing. WP:CTOPs is a terrible place to learn to edit. This is why people keep telling you we don't have the patience. :) You wouldn't be seeing that at 99.999% of articles. It's one reason we advise people to learn to edit somewhere besides the most contentious topics on the entire site.

It's fine to disagree. It's fine to think my interpretation is incorrect. It's fine to say something like, "I disagree with the interpretation". When you disagree with a close, the first step is to go to the talk page of the closer and discuss. If you'd come to my talk and asked me about it, I'd have likely been happy to have multiple exchanges with you to help clarify, that's something I do often. Most experienced closers are happy to answer questions and concerns about a close. Even when it's a close in a CTOP, most people will at least explain. We might after we explain and you don't seem to be willing to "get it" say we're done explaining, take it to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but most will try to explain at least once.

I didn't think it was personal. I thought it was a misunderstanding of policy by a new editor in a highly-contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I did tell Lincoln2020 how to challenge the close here [2]. I did tell them the first step was to speak to the closer. I considered but didn't mention you by name in large part because I wanted to try and encourage them to read both the guidelines and close properly before they made any appeal. I felt for the reasons I outlined an appeal was unlikely to go anywhere. And while speak to you might have been fine, I felt it was unlikely to end here and Lincoln2020 might have opened a AN thread challenging the close.

For whatever reason Lincoln2020 despite I assume having read my comment [3], never approached you or took any other steps to correctly challenge the closure of the RfC. Instead they continued to insist that the DRN should be re-opened despite multiple people explaining to them this won't be happening since there was no way DRN could overturn such a recent RfC-consensus with so many participants. This inability to understand even the basics is IMO one reason why editors supported a site ban since if after several days and many attempts at explanation Lincoln2020 still couldn't understand the DRN wasn't going to be re-opened and why, there didn't seem much hope for them to understand anything else.

BTW, I also said a few days back that I probably disagree with the consensus. I say probably because I haven't looked at the evidence, but I do feel it was a mistake. No one has suggested I received any sort of sanction because I said this because it was relevant to what I was saying and definitely no one has suggested I'm not entitled to this opinion.

I said this to try and explain that it's perfectly fine to disagree with the consensus, as I probably do. However you still have to accept that there is consensus and operate from this principle as I do. While I admit, in this case I don't care, even if I did care a lot more I'd still I'm fairly sure be able to put that aside. This is the point I tried to explain to Lincoln2020, it's also fine to disagree with the consensus (or whatever else) but you can't keep trying to push to change it when it's reasonable to assume the consensus holds or otherwise the community doesn't agree with you. Unfortunately this is a point Lincoln2020 never seemed to be able to appreciate

Tying this together with my other comment, I thought it should also be obvious that this also applied to whether there was consensus. If Lincoln2020 felt the close was incorrect because there was no consensus or whatever else, rather than disagreeing with the consensus, they should have followed the procedure to challenge the close and they needed to accept the outcome of that whatever it was. This never went anywhere though since instead of following the correct procedure, even after being told what it was and being told repeatedly that it did not involve DRN (at least not while from Wikipedia's PoV there was consensus) they continued to insist it should be DRN and to pointless talk about it on ANI without every taking any steps to properly challenge the close.

P.S. I do think Star Mississippi shouldn't have closed the site ban so early but also see their point that it's such a mess now it's hard to know what to do. Again I don't expect any action against me for saying this because it's fine for me to say it where relevant, provided I leave it at that and don't keep trying to push it except in an appropriate manner e.g. if I was going to challenge the close on some appropriate way.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. In retrospect in one of my later replies I probably should have re-emphasised the point 'if you want to challenge the close then please do so, but don't continue to insist you can use DRN to change such a recent widely attended RfC-consensus since you can't' Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 4 March 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).

Lincoln2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd like to request to have access to bring this to the arbitration committee, since I can't submit there. "if there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, a community ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee, by filing a case request." - WP:UNBAN This ban blatantly broke the rules around site bans. A site ban must be an open topic for at least 24 hours (recommended 72) according to WP:CBAN. This ban was not an open topic for even 24 hours, let alone 72. The original and baseless change from a tban to a siteban was on 11:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC). The ban went into effect 01:23, 3 March 2025. This is a clear and egregious violation of proper protocol. Additionally, WP:CBAN says the administrator must be "an uninvolved administrator". Based on my comments on Big Thumpus, where I added to a discussion where I disagreed with the banning administrator, just prior to that banning administrator coming to close my discussion, I argue that in addition to the ban being improper based on timing, it was also improper based on the administrator not being "uninvolved". Then, even when I tried to submit an unblock request, the request was reviewed and responded to just 13 minutes after their last edit based on diffs. For a pretty lengthy and complicated issue, I find it difficult to imagine due diligence was done, and their decline reason does not mention any of the points that I make outside of the background; "any decision will be made by the reviewing administrator who takes all points made into account." -[4] (emphasis mine). In their denial, they colorfully accused me "beating us over the head"; I wonder out loud how they might choose that language if they, too, were uninvolved. It's worth pointing out that the vast majority of their similar article-space are highly contentious political issues, they are involved in 55 of the same User talk pages, they've collaborated on their own talk page, they expressed views in line with Simonmn223's in the Gulf article's RfC I tried contesting, and there are 4 pages in which they've edited less than 5 minutes apart from eachother. I believe I clearly showed, in my lengthy background and subsequent rationale around the impossibility of being disruptive on my own open ticket, that this ban is unwarranted on the merits. Technically, it is unwarranted as well because the proper protocols were not followed. Based on the above, I'd like the ability to open this with Arbcom. Thank you. Lincoln2020 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No need to unblock you to allow you to contact ArbCom. WP:ARBCOM explains how to contact them by email. They would then be free to lift or modify the block, if necessary and as appropriate, to allow your complaint to proceed. Yamla (talk) 12:46, 3 March 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.

• Just wanted to say I had never heard of you or was aware of any of your comments before seeing your unblock request and your specific views(and mine) played no part in my decision. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Glad to know, and thank you for the response and clarity. I would have loved to have your feedback on how I was being abusive/disruptive in my own administrative complaint, which was still open. Not that it will affect anything here, but I strongly believe that if someone is using a talk page/admin board in the appropriate way (I didn't reopen anything that was settled, I wasn't pinging people). I responded to people who were posting on my post. Perhaps too much, but, when people pile on, I think it's important to make sure your opinions and actions aren't being taken out of context. For example if someone came and said "you're forum shopping", I replied "I followed the path given to me and did not intend to forum shop". I think a truly neutral observer, which absolutely may be you, could look at it and see that a good 90% of the replies on there ended up being attacks on me without any, or with very little, reference to the problem I was reporting. This absolutely may have been because of the (incorrect) assumption that I was forum shopping. At any rate, it's out of my hands now. Hope you have a nice day. Lincoln2020 (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me translate from Wikispeak to more common internetese for you.

    Wikipedia is a MMORPG. You chose to play at the hardest difficulty mode by spawning into a part of the world map called CTOPS. Most players spawn somewhere safe, and build abilities first. In CTOPs, respawns are limited, so a skill issue can result in the permanent loss of game progress. Everyone is advising you to grind your gear and skills in the main quest before participating in the end game. 12.75.41.63 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    :'D

    Lincoln2020 (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that I have re-opened the CBAN discussion at ANI purely on procedural grounds. Nearly everyone seems to agree that this is the correct outcome, but you are also correct in your concern that it was enacted too quickly. Given that a community ban is still a very likely outcome, I am leaving the block on your account in place, however if you would like me to copy anything over to the discussion please post it below and I will do so. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my comment would be: Comment: First, it's actually supposed to be open for 72 hours from what I've seen. Additionally, I don't know if this re-opening notifies people in ANI that there's an open case. If it doesn't, this re-opening isn't going to cut it. Further, re-opening the case without unbanning me is not in fact re-opening the case. I object to all of this. This whole thing is a kangaroo court; to use the complainant's completely inappropriate words more accurately.

And the fact that there are so many eyes on this from people with a higher level of trust and power in the wiki community makes all of this even more concerning.

Let's be clear about the complaint for banning me: "This whole discussion, and the discussion at WP:AN, have been a timesink". The person who opened this disagreed with me on a post which I thought was inappropriately worded and divisive - a post which the author has since admitted was inappropriate.

1. My intent wasn't to be a timesink. I originally tried to follow the process in a very contentious debate by opening a dispute in DRN.

1a. I have since learned that wasn't the right place. But it quickly became about something other than the DRN based on the heated language and threats I got for opening the DRN. I am new, mistakes happen. Not banworthy. Not biteworthy. Not threat worthy. A comment like this by @Super Goku V would have been great to see on my DRN so I could learn.

1b. As you can probably tell from my discussion with @Valereee, and as @Chess noted on my AN post, I was attempting to be reasonable when it came to contesting the RfC. Opening the DRN / trying to get neutral eyes on the RfC wasn't vindictive or abusive, it was based on my belief that the system was designed that way.

2. I felt reporting someone for misbehavior (posts and threats) was appropriate in AN.

3. An admin told me it would be more appropriate in ANI, if I chose to pursue it. I did.

4. WP:MUTUALBOOMERANG; without addressing the obvious misbehavior of the person I was reporting, I was reported for being a "timesink". I was not a "timesink" for article abuse, for article talk page abuse, for edit warring, for anything like that. I was allegedly a timesink because I reported someone.

5. The person whom I made the complaint about admitted they said things they shouldn't. [5]. Contrary to all the talk around some big community consensus about me, I don't think it's accurate. Plenty of people complained about Simonmn or mentioned his incivility.

@Nemov mentioned here that Simonm's opinions on Trump were out of place (irrelevant to the conversation at hand).

@Peter G Werner mentioned here that there were too many threats of banning (one of my complaints). And here mentioned Simonm's incivility.

@USER:Yovt mentioned here that the moratorium was "blocking good-faith civil discussion".

@USER:Tab1of2 commented on one of Simonm's comments I complained about here, with a sarcastic comment about Simonm not being fair and balanced.

Others, on my AN and on the moratorium noted that Simonmn's behavior wasn't civil.

@Big Thumpus complained.

5a. Most of the votes against me are by people who also disagreed with me on the RfC/moratorium. It might even be all of them. Disagreeing with someone's opinion shouldn't lead to a site ban.

6. I have made no disruptive edits to article space, so far as I can tell. My limited edits have contributed to the project, and future ones would as well.

You can all still community ban me for opening my case, but I believe I am vindicated; my complaint had merit even according to the person I complained about. As I noted, I understand people are human, and I don't hold anything against them. Really, all I wanted was some sort of acknowledgement that things were too heated and inappropriately political, and for editors to step back and be more neutral and civil. I "dropped the stick" on the other person in my original complaint because they apologized. All of this could have ended there.

In my eyes, this comes down to a difference in opinion. Nobody forced my complainant to attend ANI. I didn't tag them. I didn't bother them. Any "disruption" was of their own choosing. I followed the process. Sorry if you find that process annoying, or think I was wrong. Being wrong isn't cause for a site ban. Close my complaint if you don't agree; but banning me is absolutely ludicrous, and literally straight out of the book on WP:MUTUALBOOMERANG.

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” - JSM, On Liberty Lincoln2020 (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just one piece of advice:

6. I have made no disruptive edits to article space, so far as I can tell. My limited edits have contributed to the project, and future ones would as well.

Out of your 132 edits, ~25 were to article space. Given that wikipedia is for improving content (writing, editing, tools, etc), that ratio is not sustainable and is why in the initial notice I advised you to build a track record of productive editing elsewhere before appealing. Star Mississippi 13:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just so you know, I stopped editing, other than one or two edits, in order to clear up some serious concerns through AN/ANI. I felt stopping editing while the process continued would be the right thing to do.

Hope that helps explain why I have such a bad ratio. The person who mutualboomeranged me only has 12% of their contributions in the article space. So I don't think it's fair to hold the ratio against me, as I'm such a new member and this process has made my ratio far different than what it would be. Lincoln2020 (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio was not held against you, and was not a factor in your block. I pointed it out as a tool for an eventual return to editing. And it's hard for a new editor to know how to navigate process areas/project space. It's part of why the discussions went awry. Star Mississippi 13:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair it was mentioned by multiple people, so I do think it was a factor. And understandably so, it's not like I enjoyed the perception or couldn't see it myself. Lincoln2020 (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised I didn't get pinged to the original ANI thread.

The way Wikipedia and most of these community processes work is that the "experienced" editor pretty much always ends up with a logged warning on the first offence because people don't want to lose them. That logged warning basically happened at the original WP:AN thread. Personally, I don't like it, but it's true. You didn't really want to accept that you "missed your shot", so to speak, and that's why you got banned.

I am in disagreement with other editors that you can't ask for a logged warning in an ANI thread. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess yeah, I didn't ping you because I didn't want to seem like I was canvassing.

I didn't see a clear warning, maybe I missed that in the nuance.

The AN thread clearly said "I would suggest that if there are still concerns about specific "incidents", that the editors open a case on WP:ANI." from Liz. I did that, and was punished for it. The complaint on ANI was never closed. I didn't abuse the process. I didn't spam. I didn't ping. I didn't revert. I didn't disrupt.

The ANI was improperly handled, reopened, mishandled again, never open the required 72 hours, and obviously it's supposed to be a continuous 72 hours, not bits and pieces (imagine cutting it into 72 hour chunks to avoid letting people make contributions).

The person I complained about admitted they were uncivil. The cabal that banned me argued I hadn't a leg to stand on and was just being disruptive.

Farce. Lincoln2020 (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion, having been procedurally reopened, has now been procedurally reclosed as the time required has elapsed. The community's site ban stands. Cabayi (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It was not open the required 72 hours, and as I stated, I strongly object to this. In any sort of just process, a mistake as egregious as improperly closing a punitive SITE BAN would be reopened as a separate issue which could garner proper visibility for the right amount of time. Reopening a closed ANI does not give it the same visibility, nor does opening it for 9 hours overnight do it justice.

  My new comment didn't even have time to make it to the ANI let alone be considered by anybody. Lincoln2020 (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "There is consensus to increase the minimum duration for site ban discussions to 72 hours." Lincoln2020 (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Incorrect. Please read the bottom of that close, regarding WP:SNOW at 24 hours. This is reflected at WP:CBAN (the actual policy page), which says For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours (emphasis mine). Daniel (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did consider your initial reply and was considering at one point putting Lean Oppose in as a reply. By the time of your final edit to the comment, I was neutral again on the subject. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And I would say based on your comments in this section that I am no longer neutral on the subject. Take that as you may. I will repeat and amend my advice to review Standard offer and 2nd chance.

  Specifically, you should focus on this from SO: Banned users seeking a return are advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to the English Wikipedia per this offer. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting six months without making any contributions to other projects. For 2nd chance, my advice to you would be that should you be given this option that you do not pick a contentious topic article. Hopefully you will be able to return sometime next year. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be entirely clear, even if the discussion had been open for an uninterrupted 120 hours, there wasn't going to be any miraculous turnaround of opinion. The ban was all but unopposed, and it is solely because of your own conduct - conduct you have continued here. Drop the stick, and edit on other Wikipedia projects for six months. Build a good record there, consider seriously how your conduct led to the ban and how to improve that conduct, and in (at least) six months you can appeal the ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All but unopposed ... because anyone who agreed with me was scared off and their comments deleted. This world would be a very ugly place if everyone just obeyed and "dropped the stick" in the face of clear abuse.

  -I reported someone for misbehavior (which they admitted to).

  -I listened to a literal Arbcom admin and took it to ANI.

  -I was sitebanned because of it (despite 0 evidence that I was ever disruptive other than *gasp* creating a ticket in ANI).

  There is no world where I look at that conduct and agree with you, ever.

  So, either Arbcom overturns this farce, or not. It will be what it will be. In any just world, people can disagree without threats of banning (which other users complained about), cabals, and fascism. In a just world, we would see all admins involved sanctioned for abuse of power. Lincoln2020 (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]