Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	23	23
TfD	0	0	0	18	18
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	9	9
RfD	0	0	0	31	31
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 17 sockpuppet investigations
• 4 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 17 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 15 requested closures
• 87 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 7 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (25 out of 8875 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:114.129.250.118 2024-11-26 22:06 2024-12-03 22:06 move Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ScottishFinnishRadish Za'atar 2024-11-26 21:09 2025-11-26 21:09 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Israeli generals' plan 2024-11-26 21:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Shiva 2024-11-26 16:25 2025-11-26 16:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian User talk:31.163.172.36 2024-11-26 15:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:115.23.250.36 2024-11-26 13:12 2025-11-26 13:12 create HJ Mitchell Dheerendra Singram 2024-11-26 11:14 2025-02-26 11:14 create Repeatedly recreated, PP (EC) 3mos DoubleGrazing Palestine exception 2024-11-25 23:22 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 2024 Basta airstrikes 2024-11-25 19:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Deif family killings 2024-11-25 19:43 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Oyo Empire 2024-11-24 22:14 2024-12-24 22:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Fathoms Below ADA vbe EBEN 2024-11-24 22:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Fathoms Below Ọranyan 2024-11-24 21:38 2024-12-15 21:38 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case Israel Katz 2024-11-24 21:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kerem Shalom aid convoy looting 2024-11-24 20:40 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Battle of Hostomel 2024-11-24 14:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Battle of Brovary 2024-11-24 14:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:AlwaysPutsMeFirst 2024-11-24 01:25 2025-11-24 01:25 create DatGuy Yoav Gallant 2024-11-24 01:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Spore (2008 video game) 2024-11-23 18:48 2025-11-23 18:48 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Like 2024-11-23 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Algeria 2024-11-23 17:07 2025-02-23 17:07 edit Persistent disruptive editing EdJohnston 2025 Indian Premier League 2024-11-23 07:51 2025-05-23 07:51 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: semi-protection expires tomorrow, and confirmed socks already found their way here Ymblanter Luca Allam 2024-11-23 07:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz User:CFA 2024-11-23 05:24 indefinite edit Page-move vandalism Reaper Eternal

Discretionary Sanctions block appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see the copy-pasted block appeal by 71.190.206.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) below:

The blocking seems unjustified, as I updated Silvio Scaglia Haart while conforming 100 % to avoid using unreliable sources, as per the administrative warning that I achieved by priory updating Elite Model Management (EMM) and then only linking the info in pertaining section in the former to the appropriate section in the latter & other links only and no sources. There is a lot of confusion between similar sounding Elite World SA (1999) and Elite World Group (2011) and their relation to EMM. I have just sorted them out where the most confusion and then clarified in the former w/o using unreliable sources, as not using any is 100 % avoiding using, as warned. Right?--71.190.206.215 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Note, I am the blocking admin. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock This IP editor added the following highly promotional and unreferenced content Scaglia's stake is controlled through Elite World Group (EWG) owned by his Freedom Holding. In the years immediately following its acquisition by Scaglia, Elite World SA saw a significant boost in its business: with a new focus on digital marketing strategies and strategic acquisitions, the company was well-positioned for growth. It was the first international network of modeling agencies to open an office in China, in Shanghai, in 2012. In 2013, Elite World SA launched The Society Management New York. In that same year, it acquired Women Management in both New York and Paris and defended this overtly promotional content in recent hours. The editor seems to think (incorrectly) that refraining from using overtly unreliable sources excuses them from the requirements of the core content policy Verifiability to provide reliable sources for content likely to be challenged, and the core content policy requiring a rigorously neutral writing style. If this editor thinks that advertising copy is encyclopedic writing, then they are not competent to edit this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• Although the block seems to be within discretion, it's not clear to me why it was implemented as a discretionary sanctions action. The addition of unsourced content to a BLP in spite of a warning is a matter that we routinely resolve with an ordinary block. Using the BLP DS regime seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—the consequence is that the appeal is forced to come to this noticeboard where it could have been a routine unblock request decline on the user talk page. Mz7 (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  Had this been a standard block, I would have declined the unblock request. I don't believe this editor understands the necessity to properly and reliably source content and I believe the appeal is a case of WP:SNOWBALL. --Yamla (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'll opt for standard blocks in the future if this type of situation arises again. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock per Cullen and Yamla. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) - "I was warned against using unreliable sources so instead I inserted unsourced BLP content" is such a WP:POINTy move. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close needed

Anyone want to take a crack at closing Wikipedia:Move_review#The_In_Between_(2022_film)? It's been open for seven weeks now and has been listed at WP:CR for a month. -- Vaulter 14:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Close still needed. -- Vaulter 03:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Technical closure at Azov Battalion

The talk page is in general a total mess, but that's only my opinion and anyway this is not the point of the submission. There are two RfCs being that were proceeded on Azov Battalion: the March one and the April one, both of which relate to the topic of whether it is appropriate to call the Azov Battalion neo-Nazi. To be precise, the questions asked were the following:

• March: "Should the article lead describe the political ideology of the Azov?" (Yes/No)
• April: "Lede as it currently stands (with UA taken out): 'The Azov Special Operations Detachment, also known as the Azov Regiment or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov.' Should this be changed to?" (six options given, some including some variation of neo-Nazi attribution, as well as the "no change" option, i.e. stating it is neo-Nazi in wikivoice).

In my view, one RfC essentially duplicates the other, and per WP:RFC this shouldn't happen. Since the April one was in a more advanced stage, I posted a technical closure on the earlier one for two reasons: I wanted to centralise the discussion, while at the same time I wanted the closer to consider both threads when assessing consensus, as both were relevant to the result.

Some users disagreed with my move, as evidenced here and here, calling to let the March RfC continue, while also saying that each should be closed separately. Due to these challenges, I submit my move to halt one of the RfCs to review.

At the same time, consider this submission as a closure request by an uninvolved admin. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Tensions are high at that talk page, and editors that I know for a fact are overflowing with good sense have, I think, misinterpreted Szmenderowiecki's close. Two substantively overlapping RfCs running simultaneously is an untenable situation. The best case scenario is that an uninvolved closer waits until the right moment and closes both, or judges the consensus based on arguments presented in both. Szm's technical close just ensures that discussion isn't split or further duplicated before that eventual closure. <I'm involved at the talk page, but not in either RfC> Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment My involvement is with the second RFC only, being only a recent arrival at this article. As far as I know, no-one is disputing the fact that the first RFC should be closed as a technical matter although one might question why this is only being done just now so far into the second RFC. What is in dispute is the statement of close with the implied argument that both RFCs are about the same thing even though the question is different in each case (the first is "RFC: political ideology of the Azov/Should the article lead describe the political ideology of the Azov?" while the second is "RFC designation of Azov "Battalion" as neo-Nazi in lede/.. (some options to change that) and secondly the direction to a future closer to take the comments of the first into account. The close of the first begins "Given that the same question is being discussed below...." (as noted, it's not even similar never mind the same) while at the second a large tag has been placed at the beginning of it "Before you close the discussion, please take into account this similar RFC started in March 2022..". I put it that the first RFC should be closed as a purely technical matter with no reference to the second and that no reference to the first should be made at the second, other than in the usual course by individual editors who may wish to point to any relevant elements of it. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Per the split proposal close, while a "no consensus" close has the same outcome as "consensus against split" close, it is important for the close summary to accurately reflect the discussion. In my view, there was a clear consensus against a split and a closure of Consensus is not going to develop for this proposal does not reflect this or is an ambiguous way of phrasing it. Firefangledfeathers is right - tensions are high on that page at the moment. Considered and well articulated actions are necessary. Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I changed it accordingly, though I don't think it was this one that came under scrutiny. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I think this is a somewhat better close. (btw the split close was raised on your talk page here) Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support RFC close (I am an involved editor) - I think Szmenderowiecki is absolutely in the right that one of the RFCs needs to be halted, and that we need to centralize discussion. This is a major problem on that talk page, that discussions are distributed across many different sections, which has been a massive impediment to new editors who wish to provide input (the major purpose of an RFC). The two RFCs are clearly related and directly impact each other, most of all because "neo-nazi" is a political designation. If an editor is wondering whether one of these should be halted as duplicative, they must only ask "what would happen if RFC1 were closed as "no politics" and RFC2 were closed as "neo-nazi" or "with neo-nazi elements." What would we do then? This is exactly the type of conflict that WP:RFC cautions against, and why a single summative closure is likely necessary. Szm's actions in no way impede anyone from viewing that first RFC, from voicing their opinion in the larger more participated RFC, etc. Szm did not, in any way, impede the process of discussion, and that's what actually matters. Good close. I think the Split proposal should probably be closed as consensus against so that we are not inundated with repeated proposals to split. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• That talk page is radioactive. Nobody wants to touch it. El_C 23:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • If anything merits a panel close it's probably those. More to spread the heat than anything else. El_C 01:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• I've given that a first and second glance, and it doesn't look closable with any kind of actionable result. It has seven mutually exclusive options, and some editors are supporting some but not all of them, and others are opposing some but not all of them. The options changed during the course of the debate, and it's all so political and complicated that to follow the actual sequence and make sense of the thread of the debate, you have to go through the talk page history line by line -- which I've done, in the past, for difficult RfCs, but that looks like more than 600 edits. Then you identify the real-world political biases and pressures at work, which most editors including the closers will likely have, but some editors have obfuscated better than others, and try to subtract them to leave you with an informed review of the sources. And when you've done that you're meant to use it to find a consensus in favour of one of the pre-written paragraphs. Don't think that's doable.—S Marshall T/C 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The March one RFC should be reopened and closed properly by uninvolved editor IMHO. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Neil Parish

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've just semi'd the Neil Parish article for a month, expiring on May 29. More eyes on the article might not be a bad thing. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Protection has been reduced to a week, FYI. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, 172, have discussed with the other admin and the duration has been restored to a month. I've also created an edit notice, so hopefully we won't need to go to EC protection. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Article now placed under EC protection. Suggest any editor who violates BLP is blocked. There is an edit notice in place. That and EC protection should be sufficient notice to an editor to tread carefully. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requests for page protection/Increase are not being processed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I just added an entry for Neil Parish to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase only to find mine was about the sixth one. They aren't being processed. Visiting this page, I don't see an entry for that Requests page in the dashboard at the top. Perhaps it should be added? Ralph Corderoy (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

For those who came in late, this request was posted to the /increase page five times. Apparently, did not transclude over to the main page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

protection log --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The page was protected five minutes (14:39) after the first request (14:34) (and three minutes before yours (14:42)), which is pretty good going. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admins can ask questions too

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are a few admins that have nominated football player articles for AfD. I wish to point out to those guys, instead of sending an article to AfD, first maybe they could at least goto the person that created the article asking them to improve it, or better yet, pay a visit to WT:FOOTBALL asking the community the exact same thing, it would be more helpful than this digital paper-work some of you are just creating towards deleting articles. Thank you, Govvy (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have something to say to individuals about their editing, do it on their talk pages. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

So... what do you want anyone here to do? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

When an editor who happens to be an administrator nominates an article at AfD, they are acting in their ordinary capacity as an editor, and not using their administrator's tools. There is no requirement or expectation that discussion at a Wikiproject or with the article creator take place first. This is not a matter for this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is this at AN? The responsibility of editors publishing in mainspace is on them, not everyone else to make sure that the article is adequately sourced. The idea that we need to have all these long discussions surrounding (in particular) sport stub BLPs and then also have endless RFCs and now a suggestion of mediation before actual content discussion is ridiculous. Not to mention and re-state the obvious, but an admin nominating something from AFD is irrelevant to them being a sysop. AFD is the correct place to discuss notability, not individual talk pages. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• If a significant number of users are nominating FOOTY articles for deletion, perhaps the problem is not them, but instead NFOOTY itself. I have long held that NFOOTY's guidance is out of step with our general conception of notability. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek: You may have missed it; NFOOTY was deleted as a result of the recent RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal oh! I did miss that. Well thanks for the heads up. Then I guess that deepens the mystery, since I'm now not sure what Govvy's concern is? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek: I think it is in reference to a number of recent nominations made by admins Kusma and Doczilla. BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It's quite a simply request really, instead of blind nomination of articles, maybe give a heads up towards the project, see if they can improve a page first, I am not asking people to move planets here! When three different admins have nominated articles for deletion of Association footballer players, and those are kept. That means there is an issue to post to AN. :/ Govvy (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No, there isn't. I see one football player AfD closed in April as "keep" which was nominated by an admin. In March, none. So I have no idea what collective admin issue you are trying to highlight here. The one admin from April can be addressed on their user talk page, just like any editor. But your post here seems to be misguided even if correct, and not based on facts to start with. (I base my comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Deletion archive). Fram (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps what is worthy of discussion here is the personal attacks and threats made by Govvy towards other editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Green (footballer): "if you're going down this route, this is going to be extremely dangerous for you, you're already making plenty of enemies of the football project". Shameful behaviour. (On a side note, maybe it's some members of the football project who are "making plenty of enemies" by refusing to accept community consensus that footballers aren't exempt from notability requirements) AusLondonder (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: BilledMammal effectively said that football history books are not SIGCOV in my view, which is just ridicules, hence a dangerous move to say if you ask me. How is that a personal attack? If anything I feel as if you're trying to stoke another fire open. WP:BOOMARANG my friend. Govvy (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say. But the fact you have the shamelessness to bring up boomerangs is pretty remarkable, really. AusLondonder (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I said that sources that attempt to cover everyone within a group are routine coverage for that group and do not contribute to notability. This includes both sources you mentioned. As for your response, I read it as AusLondonder did, as a personal attack and a threat.

This trend, of personal attacks and threats, is becoming far too frequent at AFD, most commonly in the form of alleging that editors have failed to complete WP:BEFORE. In the worst example I have seen, it escalated to an editors talk page, where an admin started a discussion with If you continue to nominate clearly notable articles without even attempting WP:BEFORE I will seek a topic ban for you and three other editors piled on with "support" votes, despite this being a user talk page, and despite none of them providing evidence.

If we are going to have a discussion on Football AFD's, then I think this trend should be the focus of the discussion, not on admins failing to consult a WikiProject before making the nomination. BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

+1. The discussion above is related; I think it is disappointing that it was closed without any warnings (or more) being handed out for the hyper-aggressive behavior displayed by some of the regular participants in soccer AfDs. JBL (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutralhomer, requesting an unblock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting an unblock to the main block, which occured on October 20th, 2021, and was done by Floquenbeam (pinging per rules). I have, repeatedly, accepted responsibility for my actions in the original block. I have even accepted the reasoning behind it. While Floq and I may have a difference of opinion on how it all went down, it's been 6 months, that horse is long dead and buried. This block has served it's purpose.

In these six months I have not edited, sockpuppeted, or created any new accounts. I have an IPv6 IP address and I welcome anyone from CU to run a CU to verify. I have a known, open, and unblocked secondary mobile-only account. An account I could have used at anytime to continue editing constructively or unconstructively. I chose Option C: Honor the spirit of the block.

I have apologized for my actions leading up to my block, but that, seemingly, was not enough for some. "Self-reflection", further "acts of contrition", etc. were requested with one editor saying "What could you say that would be convincing? I don't honestly know...". Meaning, there isn't anything that could convince anyone. Yes, I have aired my frustrations with this process on my talk page, but that doesn't mean that's how I'm going to act. Yngvadottir made a good point "[w]hat I was hoping for was an admin suggesting an editing restriction, such as 1RR and help templates/mentorsship if he gets into a dispute in article space...", I wouldn't against that. It's better than assumptions that I might do something. Plus, if I do actually do something, don't you all think an admin will be on top of me like chitlins on collar' greens? Exactly. (...and yes, I am from the South, chitlins and collar' greens are a thing, please see Soul food).

Now, I'm aware that was slightly rant-y, but it needed to be said. Everything I say seems to be taken wrong, it shouldn't. Other editors have asked what I plan on doing if I am unblocked. Exactly what I did before I was blocked, editing radio station articles, albeit very quietly and with a much narrowed coverage area than before. I have a few edits that desperately need to be done to my FA already lined up. Again, I will be watched like a hawk watches a mouse at suppertime. I'm OK with that too.

For those who think any of this is "blame-shifting", or "babbling", or "ranting", or a "time sink", it's not. It's me, in my Autistic form (I do not "self-identif[y]", I have paperwork, an actual diagnosis, though self-identifiers are valid), explaining in blunt, literal, and drawn-out language what took place, how I feel about it, what I'm willing to accept (ie: 1RR, etc.), and what should/will come next. Again, blunt, literal, drawn-out.

TL;DR: This block has ran it's course. I'm sorry. You have nothing to worry about. I want to edit radio stations. The community and the project is safe. Everything is fine if I'm unblocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Copy/pasted by GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Everything is fine if I'm unblocked is quite a bold statement for one to make considering most of this appeal is essentially "them not me" or blaming personality traits on their failures to listen, collaborate and heed advice. A lot of this seems insincere, especially the first part about how they could've socked but didn't, as if we should be grateful. All in all, I'm not entirely sure this addresses the long history that lead up to their block. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose Oppose' - I've been keeping an eye on his talk page, since I seen that he'd gotten blocked for "continuing to baselessly accuse other editors of racist, after a very clear warning to stop". His appeal (as well as his comments on his talk page), do not address the reason(s) for the block and he just got his talk page access removed for abuse of talk page privileges. Furthermore, since he was blocked in December, he's continued to make tons of edits to his talk page leading all the way to April (mostly ranting and raving at administrators), and has not stepped away from Wikipedia or shown that he's actually been reflecting on what let to the block. He also seems to be using his Autism as an excuse rather than actually take responsibility (I've seen other editors do the same before and it always led to them getting blocked swiftly). The appeal seems to be hyperfocused on just trying to get unblocked, rather than actually offer any assurances that he won't repeat the same behavior that led to the block. I will say, I've seen Neutralhomer around a dozen times before, and he's done good work for the encyclopedia, but he also has a history of battleground behavior (as per his block log), and shouldn't be allowed to slide just because he's been around since 2007. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Neutrahomer's response to my oppose.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Reaffirming Oppose per this and per @Slywriter and @AndyTheGrump. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock based on their user talk page comments from the past few days (and really since the block was issued). They are interacting with others in the same inappropriate manner that got them blocked in the first place. Nothing in the unblock request changes my mind that they've shown a fundamental incompatibility with being in a collaborative volunteer environment. And yes, I intend my unblock oppose vote to be a vote for a siteban. Levivich 22:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Anyone interested in how Neutralhomer has been acting recently should read their talk page for the last ten days. Start at User talk:Neutralhomer#Unblock and read on, paying attention to the date stamps, because it is not in chronological order. Also be aware that the editor has filed eight UTRS appeals in the past six months, the most recent of which accuses all involved administrators of bad faith and malice. Cullen328 (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

    Even with the way he's responding to each and every comment here, reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLUDGEON. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Question I’ve been watching their recent talk page comments and I’m really confused about whether or not they know why they were blocked. It seems to veer between, in their view, an injustice by Floqenbeam and something which they deserved. Could they clarify that and explain what they would now do differently if confronted by a similar scenario. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose. His answer to my question says to me he doesn’t understand or doesn’t accept why he was blocked. The most he offers is he “took it too far”. Neutralhomer, if you read this, you said in another post “I honestly don't know what you all want”. It’s quite simple really. All you need to have said is that you now realise your block was inevitable because you made a series of personal attacks, including accusing people of being racist, which you shouldn’t have done, and you’ll strive not to do it again. You didn’t say any of that. Ok, if you had there may be still be an issue of whether or not people believe you, but all the time you talk about the other stuff (“bullying”, the FA, work, “I don't talk in the same way as most people” etc etc) - that’s reason for people not to believe you. You made the ADA comment in the same edit. I don’t actually think that rises to being NLT, although I can understand why others have taken it that way. That’s very definitely in the “other stuff” category which you shouldn’t have gone near. DeCausa (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  RE: " doesn’t understand or doesn’t accept why he was blocked." That has been my impression throughout their sojourns to UTRS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Having read through NH's Talk page, especially the recent bizarre unblock request, I can't see any point in lifting the ban. Just on his own Talk page, NH turned from a somewhat humorous unblock request to an outright rant against Floquenbeam for opposing his unblock. NH tends to blame everyone else and lash out at criticism, while showing little self-reflection & a tendency to focus on the wrong things. As above, where he goes right back into the "I'm good, or otherwise I'd already be socking!" that people told him last time was a bad argument. As well, pulling out the autism argument: we have lot of autistic editors on Wikipedia, waving documents around isn't a shield from critique. Based on his behavior on his talk page, I'm convinced that any unblock will, in short term, turn into WP:ROPE when NH gets into a disagreement with someone and launches personal attacks again. I don't see any reason to make other editors go through that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I believe with a mentor by his side, for the first 6 months. He could become a productive editor, particularly in his area of interests. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  GoodDay, how kind of you to offer! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support per GoodDay. I think that Neutralhomer genuinely wants to improve the encyclopedia. I can understand where they're starting to get frustrated with the differing viewpoints. I would like to see DeCausa's questions/concerns answered/addressed, however. NH, if I had any advice to give you, it would be to have patience. You've got quite the block log - and right or wrong, try to understand how that potentially makes people nervous about the possibility of recidivism. SQL^{Query Me!} 00:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I believe that they have sufficiently demonstrated an ongoing inability to interact with others in a collaborative environment. SQL^{Query Me!} 02:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support (after edit conflict). Courtesy links: the AN/I discussion where Neutralhomer's edits in support of the subsequently indeffed complainant led to his block; denied appeal/request for unblock here, early January. And reminding those who haven't followed the ins and outs that I was one of the editors Neutralhomer accused of racism in the run-up to his block. I have said before that I find As I have stated numerous times, I fucked up. I took my defense of an editor too far. I apologize. I apologize to everyone for being a complete asshole and a jerk. That's not being me being "problematic" now, that's just me discribing how I was being at the time. I have no excuse for my behavior, I was an asshole., while digressing in the middle and while expressed in cruder language than some editors are used to seeing in an appeal to be unblocked, to be a satisfactory statement of understanding what they did wrong and apologizing for it. And As I have stated numerous times, I FUBAR'd. I took my defense of an editor too far. I apologize. I apologize to everyone for being a proper twit. That's not being me being "problematic" now, that's just me discribing how I was being at the time. I have no excuse for my behavior. A right arse, I was. in the request for unblock on April 22, likewise. I also consider both As I have said in a couple other UTRS unblock requests, I have a few edits I would like to do immediately to a couple radio station articles. So, I plan on hitting the ground running, albeit very quietly. I don't plan on making any waves. I don't plan on contacting DrKay, unless the community says that a public apology is wanted/needed, then I will. in the earlier request and the repetition on April 22, Again, I took my defense of an editor too far. As I have said in a couple other UTRS unblock requests, I have a few edits I would like to edit a couple favorite radio station articles of mine that desperately need it. So, I plan on hitting the ground running, albeit very quietly. I don't plan on making any waves. I don't plan on contacting DrKay, unless the community says that a public apology is wanted/needed, then I will to be acceptable under WP:GAB. But I am not an admin anymore, in large part because I unblocked someone (primarily because I defied Arbcom to do so, but the small amount of evidence justifies regarding me as a soft touch anyway). I've presented my view of Neutralhomer's April talk page edits on Cullen328's talk page as part of trying to persuade him to restore NH's talk page access, and I'm all over NH's talk page itself, trying to advise him without spoonfeeding. That goes for here, too. I think he genuinely can't see that he strays into meta commentary that not only talks about others but can be perceived as continuing the behavior he was blocked for. I've edited this down; I'd love to be clear because I don't perceive the references to his autism as excuses, I perceive them as attempts to ask for clearer instructions, but if I say anything more than "tighten it up" I may cause his appeal to be closed on grounds that he didn't write it unaided. Cullen has stated that he's been inveighing against admins at UTRS. That is regrettable (British understatement) and as NH must see demonstrated above, it doesn't help his case. As I said at Cullen's user talk, I was hoping a patrolling admin would respond to his April unblock request with a conversation proposing an edit restriction; I floated 2 suggestions: 1RR and help templates/mentorsship if he gets into a dispute in article space and an agreement not to post to the noticeboards concerning disputes in which he is not personally involved without first receiving clearance from the unblocking admin or a mentor (on-wiki or via e-mail). I don't understand the insistence on considering his appeal at a noticeboard. But his appeal was declined by Nosebagbear, who implied that they also regarded consideration at a noticeboard as necessary. Anyway, we're here now. So—via people posting his responses over here—this is where NH needs to demonstrate that he can stay on point and that he can discuss his editing and make the case for his being unblocked without being uncivil. It is my hope that he will do so and that I haven't messed it up for him, not only because I want the encyclopedia to again benefit from his expertise and willingness to maintain articles on radio stations (one of many topics where I have neither the knowledge, the interest, nor the time to do so myself), but because in my judgement he's saying what he needs to say and demonstrating an adequate degree of understanding and commitment to do better ... but. [Deep breath]. May I suggest discussion here of editing restriction(s). By admins who are capable of setting them out clearly and willing to enforce them. In the spirit of WP:ROPE, invoked above, including letting NH speak for himself. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I asked NH to clarify his statement about the ADA, taken as a legal threat by Slywriter, AndyTheGrump, and Praxidicae below, but talk page access was revoked by Cullen a few minutes later on that basis. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If he is unblocked, would you be his mentor? You are the best! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Noting that NH did answer at UTRS appeal #57763, basically denying the legal threat, but continuing on in the sort of disruptive manner we've come to expect, (ie, blaming others and personal attacks) and which I won't carry over in full for that reason. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support per SO, AGF and ROPE. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NLT,of which one has been made in their response section on the talk page,Special:Diff/1085706283. If it's a reason to ban, it's certainly a reason not to unban. Also talk page access should be reconsidered.Slywriter (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Slywriter above. I wasn't going to comment here, having had run-ins with NH in the past, but posting an unambiguous legal threat as part of an unblock request is almost unbelievable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Having read through their talk page I believe they have too much of a battleground mentality for an unblock to be in Wikipedia's best interests. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose in case my comment wasn't clear, especially after the diff Slywriter posted. Ignoring the NLT aspect of it, it shows a remarkable lack of understanding of...anything related to this block. Not to mention, NH if you're reading this, it absolutely doesn't apply. You're not an employee of Wikimedia and editing isn't compulsory. PRAXIDICAE💕 01:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Absolutely not for reasons that are abundantly clear at their Talk, and UTRS #57763. Star Mississippi 02:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I intended to neither support nor oppose, as long as Neutralhomer conducted themself in a reasonable fashion during this appeal. The legal threat is unacceptable. The notion that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prevents well-founded criticism of the behavior of a volunteer on a website is ludicrous. My wife and one of my sons are disabled by completely different conditions and I am acutely aware of such discrimination. This isn't it. I have again revoked Neutralhomer's talk page access, and am sad about this debacle. Cullen328 (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• No UTRS #57763 (from today) is simply insulting. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not overly convinced NH was making directly or indirectly a legal threat. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've had a run-in with a user before that invoked Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 before (saying Wikipedia was required to provide him accommodation or be sued millions of dollars), so I'd definitely say from experience, that it is a legal threat. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know where NH was going with his mentioning of ADA. But, I do wish he hadn't brought it up, period. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  "I am protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990" can't be anything else but a legal threat. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think he's destroyed his chances of reinstatement. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I can no longer support this request, but @Mythdon, please don't quote NH dishonestly, that isn't what was said. They certainly mentioned the ADA, but at no time said that WP was "required to provide him accommodation or be sued millions of dollars".

  What was said was (verbatim) "But, now that you bring it up, since I live in Virginia (which is part of the US), I am protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Wikipedia and Wikimedia's servers are based in California. You opened that door.". SQL^{Query Me!} 04:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I know Neutralhomer himself did not say "Wikipedia was required to provide him accommodation or be sued millions of dollars". I was referring to a different user that said "Wikipedia was required to provide him accommodation or be sued millions of dollars" while mentioning ADA. Neutralhomer mentioning ADA made me think back to an incident from 2008, hence that first part where I said "I've had a run-in with a user before that invoked Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990", and was using that incident with the other user as an example to why I concluded that Neutralhomer is/was making a legal threat. I hope that clears everything up, that I wasn't trying to misquote Neutralhomer or say that he said things he didn't say. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Concerning his mentioning of ADA. I still wish I could get an explanation from him directly. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Unless his talk page access gets restored, which doesn't seem likely. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion - Ideally, every radio station has a Wikidata item. Many stations' items are missing data, missing images, missing coordinates, etc. Work on them. Commons has many images of radio stations that could probably be better organized/categorized/described. Simple English Wikipedia has many articles about radio stations, many of which are not very good. You could have a real impact on any of these projects. Choose one or all of them (Wikidata is all the rage in the worlds of libraries, big data, etc. these days, even if I'm partial to Commons myself), focus on them for six months, come back to English Wikipedia with evidence of positive contributions elsewhere. Then, when making an unblock request, you're right that a great big performative shameful apology isn't required. What people want to know is that (a) you understand why you were blocked (saying you "went too far" or "I was a twit" doesn't really get at that), (b) you have a plan to make sure it won't happen again, and preferably (c) assurances that if it does happen again, it won't require a massive amount of many people's time to address. If this doesn't sound like a reasonable plan, feel free to ignore me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Self-reporting. I just did a very bad thing at UTRS. Can someone please clean it up? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir I figured out what happened, its all good. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir: You get an A+ for going more than the extra mile. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cullen. I was gonna WP:SO allow this user back on, but some other comments during this process have casted doubt. Legal threats are not ok. Their past conduct was particularly egregious, accusing someone wrongfully of racism has to be among the worst violations. I wouldn't review this user for another 6 months. Revoking their talk page access was a good move. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, sorry. I would really to see find a way back here, but, this is not it. "Now, I'm aware that was slightly rant-y, but it needed to be said"? No. It did not. It absolutely did not. That "lightly rant-y" part was two thirds of the unblock request. The block came after some extreme ranting, TPA was revoked for more of the same, and the failed unblock requests that I can see were declined at least in part for more rantiness (and it sounds like something similar in the UTRS requests). I really don't know how you can't see see, after all that, that a new request that is predominantly a "slightly rant-y" screed is a very bad idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'll just add that I see some have opposed because of the ADA comment. I don't necessarily see that as a threat of legal action (and it would have been nice if HeutralHomer had the chance to clarify), but it most definitely is chilling and confrontational. And I see much of the same in the talk page interactions of the past couple of weeks - confrontation, attacks, insults, and generally carrying on old feuds and blaming other people. The whole "Yes I was bad and won't do it again, but the rest of you are still assholes" vibe just reinforces that the block needs to be maintained. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  RE: "similar in the UTRS requests." Yes, with knobs on it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - On its face, bringing up the Americans With Disabilities Act is not by itself a legal threat. However, following up this revelation with an observation that Wikimedia's servers are located in California and "you opened that door", that part is an implied legal threat, probably could easily be interpreted as an explicit one too. This is plainly unacceptable.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral as I am not objective Thanks, @GoodDay: for bringing this here. Noting that at UTRS appeal #57763, user said they would contact ArbCom for an unblock request. I think that's a good idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

@Cullen328: While I realize the likelihood of further disruption, I think it would be best to restore TPA so user can respond to this discussion. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I am not going to do that, but if you think there is benefit in restoring their talk page access, please feel free to do so without objection from me. Cullen328 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

TBH, I've done more than my share to help this user, to be forbearant, to go beyond the extra mile. If anyone else is so inclined, that'd be great. I decline. (did I mention I am no longer objective.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm definitely Involved, but I think the UTRS shenanigans are more indicative of the problem. NH doesn't get their way and they go into overdrive. I'm not sure how much of a security risk it actually was, but that shouldn't be tolerated just because he didn't get his way. (I'm talking about the link sharing, not the posting which I guess he saw as his only outlet with TPA revoked.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs)
• Oppose (am the most recent declining admin) - NH's participation in the unblock process demonstrated that they would only be a netgain editor while everything was going their way. They have demonstrated an inability to participate in discussions that don't go their way. I stated that community discussion would be needed as there was a veritable tranche of reviewing admins who couldn't agree on their talk page, and at that stage, it's got to head to the community. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (ec) NH just doesn't get it. The rants on the talk page and the multiple rants in NH's UTRS requests just shows me they don't understand why they were blocked, and unblocking them will bring us right back to where we are now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as I said the last time this came up here, Neutralhomer has been blocked 23 times and the current indef block is the 4th. That kind of history suggests that someone just isn't suited to editing here, and for an unblock I would expect some sort of evidence that isn't the case. Posting what I can only describe as abusive rants to UTRS, even after the above request was filed, is the exact opposite of this. It would make more sense to decide at this point that considering these requests is a timesink. Hut 8.5 18:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have declined at least one of NH's UTRS requests. I oppose unblocking largely because of what I've seen over on UTRS. NH's behaviour there makes it very clear unblocking them would be a bad idea. --Yamla (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• At the risk of coming off as too paternalistic, *this* is why I wouldn't post this unblock request at AN. It was 100% guaranteed to end this way. While I don't think I am actually INVOLVED, I know NH does, so I won't close it. But I really feel that it would be better to put this request out of its misery; it is literally impossible that this discussion is going to result in an unblock now.
• While the legal threat seems to have been either misunderstood or retracted, I note that talk page access had already been removed on 30 April by Cullen328, and was only restored so NH could make this unblock request, which has obviously not worked out. I do think it is important long-term that the block log reflects that there is no unresolved legal issue, so I'd suggest someone reblock with talk page access restored, or with talk page access removed but with a revised summary.
• NH says he is going to ArbCom. Can I suggest that someone whose opinion he respects - Yngvadottir? - recommend he wait on that for quite some time? ArbCom is not in the habit of overruling recent, clear, overwhelming community consensus. I don't believe I've ever seen it happen in a situation remotely like this. It's not fair to make it sound like that has any meaningful likelihood of success, when really it's going to blow up in his face. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: He kinda sorta emailed ArbCom at about the time he appealed here. I came from the UTRS post where he said he would email ArbCom to find this appeal up and running. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  and Wikimedia. Unfortunately, I don't think we can save him from himself @Floquenbeam @Deepfriedokra Star Mississippi 02:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per their massive block log and ongoing community concerns. The block is clearly preventative and should remain. I also agree that the request should be closed per WP:SNOW. Jusdafax (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - FWIW, The lad (through an email to another editor) says he was not making a legal threat. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it is worth a great deal, under the circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note to closer Just reiterating that at UTRS appeal #57763 and in emails to other users, has said it was not his intent to offer a legal threat.01:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I have just received, entirely unprompted, an email from NeutralHomer, via the Wikipedia 'email this user' facility. And while there was nothing specifically objectionable about the content, beyond a continued attempt to blame everyone else for his own actions, neither was there anything that in any shape or form justified the email, from someone I have never contacted in such a manner - it appears that having been blocked from using his talk page because of his improper behaviour, NeutralHomer has decided to continue in the same manner, via email. Accordingly, I suggest that NeutralHomer also be blocked from sending emails, since the facility was never intended to be used in such a manner - it isn't a tool to get around blocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I received an email from him a few hours ago and was thinking the same thing. You could just also go into your Special:Preferences and block him from sending you emails, like I did (not that I'm excusing him or anything). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I could block NH from emailing me personally, certainly. But that doesn't address the broader issue: which is that email seems to be being used to get around a block - and in a manner that is anything but transparent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

True, but I blocked him because I don't want him sending me a bunch more, like when he was responding to and pinging everyone that commented on this thread. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

...and before I even have the opportunity to block NH, I get another email from him. Making it clear that he has read my above post, and that he is fully aware that I do not wish to receive further email communication. If this isn't an attempt at harassment, it is simple trolling, or utter incompetence entirely sufficient to justify a permanent community ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If this gets closed at this point, let it please be a procedural close because he has now submitted an appeal to Arbcom? (In response to Floq, yes, I believe that step has been taken.) Alternatively, my suggestions are still on the table, but I think I would be a terrible mentor. If nothing else, because I'm going to run out of edits by mid-month at this rate (I limit myself to 99 a month). But also, I'm really bad at procedures and, remember, desysopped for cause. (Not to mention a technical incompetent who just committed a big breach of security through not looking at the tail end of a URL.) I'm not likely to advise NH or anyone else to just ignore all rules, or to hack the servers, but mentoring someone is out of my league. I've decided for the moment not to pester anyone else, but it would be lovely if someone would step up, or formally back the idea while this remains open. But process may require closing it in deference to Arbcom. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's another editor he's on as good terms (or at all) with. So if you can't (and I'm not saying you should - it's a huge ask of any one and you have your own personal concerns), I'm not sure it's a viable proposal. Star Mississippi 03:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I really disagree with that. I'm of the mindset that if this doesn't close with a siteban, I think I'm going to make the siteban proposal. This person is outright using this website to harass people. Repeatedly, constantly, on the talk page, on UTRS, and via email-this-user (as reported above). I really don't understand the tolerance for it. It's a serious, repeated, violation of civility policies and our TOS/UCOC. Why tolerate this? I've seen this happen over and over with various users. How many times has his talk page access been revoked, restored, and revoked again? How many previous indefs? How is that not enough? We take too long to deal with long term abuse like this, and this is another example of it. Neutralhomer is abusive to other people on this website: it's right there on the talk page for all to see, and that's just the public parts. We should be showing people like this the door far more quickly than we do. We need to stop trying to "save" them from themselves. We need to worry more about everyone else. This whole unblock request has been hugely disruptive, sucking up a bunch of editors time for no good reason. End it. /rant Levivich 03:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• and he has just emailed me, which I deleted unread. Neutralhomer, do not contact me. I do not wish to engage with you. If ArbComm needs information from me, they are welcome to request it. I second @AndyTheGrump: that this is either harassment or trolling, and someone needs to put a stop to it. Star Mississippi 03:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I don't think this discussion needs to be stopped out of deference to ArbCom. The Arbitration Committee only hears a small number of kinds of appeals: The Arbitration Committee will, for the time being, take appeals (i) from editors who are subject to an {{OversightBlock}} or a {{Checkuserblock}}; (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions. As any appeal by Neutralhomer will be evaluated first on the basis of whether it is eligible for appeal by ArbCom it would be unfortunate if this discussion were stopped only for ArbCom to decide that the appeal was out of scope. Additionally, the community and ArbCom often have parallel authority - that is either group is able to do an action (an example being placing general/discrestionary sanctions) - and so even if it's with-in scope for ArbCom that doesn't mean it's out of scope here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Due to several editors reporting unwanted/unsolicited emails from Neutralhomer, I have revoked their email privilege. I respectfully request that an uninvolved administrator bring this train wreck to a close. Cullen328 (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(After ec, overtaken by events.) I received an e-mail from NH requesting me to post here, but I'm not going to do so because the message is unclear to me. However, this bit I did understand: I'm honestly trying to communicate with you all in the only way I can. If you wish for me to respond, please unblock my talk page access. That's not likely to happen, with an Arbcom appeal having commenced and pre-empting any talk page application for unblock (an Arb may of course correct me), unless someone wants to formally propose that we discuss mentorship here, and reading the room, not likely even if I made rash promises. Procedural close, please; otherwise, I think this remaining open is tempting him to try to participate by some means. @Levivich: You were on the list in my head, as a clueful editor who knows your way around the noticeboards and the PAG, but your point about this appeal being a waste of other editors' time is one I hadn't considered, so I'm sorry. I also admit I haven't looked at the basis for NH's block log; searching for the previous appeal caused me to see there were several old AN/I discussions. But people can change; and people can also be wrongly blocked. EEng might be a good mentor for NH. <eg> Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

For a moment there I thought you were suggesting I be someone's mentor. EEng 04:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, seriously, I always like to help where I can, but what made you think of me? EEng 04:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Your charm. Your wit. Your savoir faire. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

What he said. Plus your unparalleled knowledge of both PAG and what it feels like to be blocked. Since this is still open, I'll mention that Neutralhomer, now presumably sleeping, has informed me that yes, he's open to mentorship and edit restrictions. So there's that. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps that will be an option in future unblock requests. ( I think this one has sunk.) Noting that NH edited for six years between derailments. Maybe in six months his personal situation will have changed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: Better than being called a Dementor --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. For the record, I have also received an email from NeutralHomer, but I have no problem with it at all. He stressed (at length, admittedly) that his mention of the ADA was not intended as a legal threat, and that he has no intentions of pursuing legal action. I saw no attacks, no incivility. I just sensed frustration at being unable to respond here. While I maintain my opposition to unblocking at this point, I also think NeutralHomer has been poorly treated here by being denied the opportunity to speak in response to other people's judgments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee:, I agree. Cullen said in his response to my request that he restore TPA, that he would have no problem with me doing so. I assume the same holds true for anyone so inclined. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Shame nobody actually did it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock; regretfully, consider that a support for a community ban. NeutralHomer has dug a deeper and deeper hole with almost every edit throughout the original ANI expedition until the present, and seems to have no idea of how (or even whether) to stop. While i have seen plenty of good editing from him over the years, i'm afraid that currently he is displaying a lack of competence with regard to being a functional member of the community ~ which is essential to continue editing. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I want to draw attention to a discussion I had with Sandstein on his talk page about the community ban element of the close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

FutureProofs Block Appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I'm posting a block appeal on behalf the blocked user FutureProofs. They are currently blocked but not banned, however the reviewing admins couldn't come to a clearcut discussion decision and as such a broader review by the Community is requested. Their appeal is below, but I would suggest reading their talk page for a few additional details. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear editors, a year ago, I registered on Wikipedia, made my first edits and my account was suspended. Since my account was newly created, I didn't have a deep understanding of the policies and guidelines. But during this time, I got acquainted with the WP:GUIDELINE in more details and realized that I broke the WP:PROMO and WP:ADS rules a year ago. In February of this year, I opened a request and asked for unblocking the account. I started a discussion with other editors, but as a result a "procedural decline" decision was made. In March of this year, I opened a second request, confirming once again that it is no longer necessary to keep my account blocked, since I have studied in detail the rules for writing articles from a WP:NPOV, using WP:RS, avoiding WP:PROMOTION and WP:SPAMLINKS, and much more. I have also requested a 2nd chance to be convinced of this, and not just rely on my words. However, the procedural decline was made again. Since I'm not sure that the third request will give a result, I need your advice and help in resolving this issue. If you need to know the answers to any questions, please let me know. I will gladly cooperate. Thank you in advance for your time. Best regards, FutureProofs (talk)

• Support per WP:ROPE. BilledMammal (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. For those researching the history, the objection from MER-C (the blocking admin) is in their talk page archive. I agree with BilledMammal regarding ROPE. In some cases, it's hard to tell if the user has gone back to the behaviors which originally got them blocked. Behaviors like failure to collaborate or incivility don't have bright-line indicators. In this case, it would be quite easy to tell; continued use of these kinds of SEO sources. If that happens, we know where the banhammer is. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I was inclined to unblock per ROPE, since the user can use sources properly. It's certainly possible I'm being overly optimistic - perhaps they're just covering and, a couple of months down the line, will revert to prior behaviour. But they may not - and I'm inclined to give it a go. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:One last chance. Cullen328 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per our longstanding principles of AGF and ROPE. I’m not sure what more we could ask for in an unblock request and as the user says the only way they can prove that we can trust them is to give them the chance to do so. Even if we are wrong, the risk of harm to the project is minimal. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support User seems to understand what led to them being blocked and has demonstrated that they've been familiarizing themselves with our rules and practices since being blocked and has expressed their intention to continue to do so if they get unblocked. I think this is a case where "they can always be blocked again" applies.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support The user seems to get it, and as had been said earlier a few things, a reblock would be quick and easy to implement. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per all above. And here's a thought... Instead of "Procedural decline, because nobody has seen fit to unblock", maybe we could avoid needing this kind of process by adopting a "Procedural accept, because nobody has found a reason to decline" stance? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee I had that same thought yesterday! Yes! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Lifting a block generally involves discussion with the blocking admin. Are you folks thinking a procedural accept could happen without that discussion? My concern is, if I'm procedurally-accepting an unblock because nobody has seen fit to decline, I'm not really in a position to justify to the blocking admin that the block should be lifted. I'm not being passive-aggressive here, I'm intrigued and just looking to clarify. I do a lot of procedural declines. --Yamla (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm thinking have a word with the blocking admin along the lines of "Nobody has found a reason to decline, do you have any objection if I unblock?" Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Which might lead to another snag if the blocking admin then says "I'm sick/busy/on vacation, let me have some time to read the unblock request" and then they never get back to you. In those situations, I still agree that a procedural unblock is a good idea since Wikipedia shouldn't be a bureaucracy. WaltCip-(talk) 13:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. If the blocking admin can't respond speedily, then just go ahead with the unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, everyone. I'll try this approach. Also, please please please also try this approach yourselves. The unblock category is almost always backed up and this will slow things down further (but in a good way). :) --Yamla (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Err, noting one common reason for these procedural declines is that someone has depleted the ready corp of reviewers willing to put in the time. This situation is also seen in edge cases where it's not clear what unblock conditions should be used. Defaulting to unblocking without conditions would be non-productive. Perhaps in the latter case there should be a default to "ask user if they want a community review" Nosebagbear (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's a good point, but a blocked editor shouldn't have to suffer further because there are too few admins available. (As an aside, if the unblock request queue builds up, perhaps ask here for more admins to help reduce it?) If there's a clear reason to refuse an unblock request, the "procedural close" admin should be able to see that - but those aren't the problematic ones anyway. And it's easy to ask the blocking admin directly "Can you see a reason not to unblock?" If all else fails, and it's not an obviously problematic editor with a clearly unacceptable unblock request, why not just unblock? What's the worst that can happen? (And yes, I now know to expect a message on my talk page sometime in the future saying "Erm, you know when you asked what was the worst that could happen..." ) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  One thing you could also do is set a minimum standard for procedurally granting an unblock request if the blocking admin is not present. A three-pronged test: "Is the request coherent", "Is the request at least minimally related to the reason for being blocked", and "Is the request free of egregious WP:NPA or WP:NOTTHEM violations"? Something that's relatively simplistic and leaves out room for interpretation or subjectivity. WaltCip-(talk) 12:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Gee, what a contrast with the unblock request immediately above ~ the editor seems to understand and be able to verbalise what they did wrong, accept responsibility for it, explain why it won't happen again...all of which while being polite. Unblock and watch. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My appeal to lift my topic ban was archived without having been closed

I appealed to have my topic ban lifted. The appeal and its discussion were never closed, yet they have been archived. Can this be remedied? not sure whether the fix is to remove it from the archive and re-place it here to continue discussion, or to close the discussion with a resolution. But the current situation leaves me in a limbo of an unresolved appeal.

SecretName101 (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I've listed it at WP:RFCL. BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing all edits of a disruptive editor from revision history of a specific article

• Special:Contributions/Wrestlewrestlingmania
• Turned the revision history of Sonya Deville into a mess by adding disruptive/vandalist edits like[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and much more.
• The user Made 124 edits from 10:40, 3 May 2022 to 13:15, 3 May 2022
• So is it possible to hide and delete those edits? They damaged both revision history and page statistics. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I see you've already reverted them, so I assume you mean remove even the record of the edits them from the history? If so, no – even if they were revision deleted or oversighted they'd still show up in the history as deleted edits. And of course we don't use those tools for common-or-garden vandalism. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Yeah, I mean the whole record. He did very same stuff on Stuart Dallas and Mateusz Klich (and maybe more articles). His edits on those articles were in 26 April. I don't understand how he managed to evade indef-block until today. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Legend has it that the dark art of poor man's oversight is still remembered in some rouge circles. However it can be a pain, and usually works best on newer articles, so it's usually kept hidden away. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Please block Lavito principa

Please block Lavito principa as a sock of Lazy-restless.[10] Also if possible delete Draft:Paradoxical Sajid, Pak-Bangla language, Khandaker Abdullah Jahangir under WP:G5. What happend is Lazy-restless creates account, creates draft from IP, waits for some days and then login and edits to became WP:AUTOCONFIRM, and then move article to main namespace. In this way the user gets around G5. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the account. You can tag the articles for speedy deletion if you want, but it looks like other people are editing some of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Please block this IP

Hi can somebody block IP 68.179.219.1, I had to undo vandalism he made to a page a couple of minutes ago and noticed all his edits throughout the years seem to have this repeating occurrence. --Aaron106 (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That's an educational IP, and the edits are clearly mostly from different people. I personally don't think that the activity therefrom is sufficient to warrant a block, but if some student is vandalizing many pages (or one page repeatedly) in a short time, you can report the IP to WP:AIV. Deor (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

What is needed is an anon block with account creation enabled. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

All edits since the IP returned in January from a block have been non constructive. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Template parameter assistance

At {{Cite web}}, I am having trouble with the "|url-access=" parameter to say it requires a subscription at Jordan Poole citation 82.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger You'll probably get better responses at Help talk:Citation Style 1, this isn't really an administrative problem. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Eric C. Conn

Eric C. Conn is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it.

I suggest a redirect to any of these:

• List of American Greed episodes§Eric C. Conn
• Natasha Cornett§Eric C. Conn
• Statue of Abraham Lincoln (Stanville, Kentucky)§Eric C. Conn

Citations:

• "Lawsuit: Disbarred KY lawyer Eric Conn misused court system". kentucky.com. 2021-01-05. Retrieved 6 May 2022.
• "Fugitive Lawyer Involved in Largest Social Security Fraud Scheme Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for His Escape and Related Crimes". United States Department of Justice. 7 September 2018. Retrieved 6 May 2022.
• Jiang, Jeffrey (8 April 2022). "Crooked Judges, Fraudulent Lawyers, and How the Social Security Administration Has Failed 3,500 People". HLS Clinical and Pro Bono Programs. Harvard Law School. Retrieved 6 May 2022.
• "American Greed: Season 12 Episode Guide (6: "Conn's Job")". TV Guide. March 19, 2018. Retrieved March 18, 2018.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk • contribs)

If there isn't a clear target for the redirect then it may be better not to create one and show the reader search results instead. Hut 8.5 07:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Eric C. Conn is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it.

I suggest a redirect to this first, while growing the section sufficient for full article:

• Statue of Abraham Lincoln (Stanville, Kentucky)§Eric C. Conn

Citations:

• "Fugitive Lawyer Involved in Largest Social Security Fraud Scheme Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for His Escape and Related Crimes". United States Department of Justice. 7 September 2018. Retrieved 6 May 2022.
• Johnson, Rae. "'Mr. Social Security,' series about infamous Kentucky lawyer Eric Conn, to air on Apple TV+". The Courier-Journal. Retrieved 6 May 2022. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. As Hut 8.5 notes above, there may be a good reason to not arbitrarily create a redirect. If we leave it a redlink, then the search results show every article the name Eric C. Conn appears in. If we created a redirect, it would only be valid to link to one of those. Your proposal is less useful than you think it is. --Jayron32 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for drawing your editing to our attention. Since it appears that your only editing on this subject is to add multiple references about Conn's legal problems even when they were irrelevant to the article, I have removed those where they were spurious and believe that Conn's own article should remain thoroughly red-linked. I have watch-listed all affected articles. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  Occasionally golden eggs are dropped into the laps of administrators. One type is the occasional LTA who drops into AN and says "I am a sockpuppet, please ban me". This is the other type. WaltCip-(talk) 12:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well, well. That only took 10 days. I have repeatedly asked this user to leave me alone. Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#User:Baseball Bugs on 26 April 2022, user agreed to leave me alone. Today I wake up to another message on my talk page asking for help.

@Cullen328: @Newyorkbrad: @Masem: @Guettarda: Do something to stop this user from bothering me. AldezD (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, this nonsense: "I've asked user AldezD about this, suspecting he'll agree that it's fancruft. If he doesn't think so, I'll drop it." I've never edited the Mattea Roach article. AldezD (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I asked you for help on a fancruft issue. Someone thinks that reporting which Jeopardy host Mattea Roach prefers is somehow important. If you don't think that qualifies as fancruft, then I'll let it stand. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

No administrator I, but Baseball Bugs, c'mon. When your interaction with this user was already the subject of an AN/I thread, this really should be obvious to you. I don't think any sanction is necessary, but just stop. Seek generalized help on talk pages. It's hard not to read what would otherwise be a benign talk page message as anything other than petty and passive-aggressive. That said, Happy Friday to everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

So I see an allegation of hounding, and a balanced one of casting aspersions (regarding the sockpuppet claims). If BB agrees to avoid AldezD, and AldezD agrees not to make claims against BB that they can't back up, can this be put to bed?

Would that be fair, @Baseball Bugs and @AldezD? Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Soytenly. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This is the opposite of avoiding AldezD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of any user who's more death-on-fancruft than Aldez is. That's why I asked for his help. If you know another user I could ask about it instead, please tell me. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. Stop bothering me. AldezD (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If you can think of someone else to ask about this instead, please tell me. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, see what you just did there? STOP DOING THIS. Your opinions of AldezD, positive or otherwise, are entirely irrelevant. This should not be a difficult concept. Dumuzid (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone but AldezD? NPOVN? Wikiproject something-or-other. Literally anyone but the editor you said you would avoid. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I forget why I had AN on watch for some reason, noticed this, so... IMO this has to be a 1-way interaction ban now. What they are unwilling or able to do by choice must be imposed. ValarianB (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Fine. I'll find someone else to ask, somehow, somewhere. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A one-way interaction ban does look pretty reasonable at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Have any of you actually read the issue I raised in that article? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

No, all I read was where you said you would avoid AldezD, and the went directly to their talk page. ANI isn't for content issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to just outright block BB from being able to edit AldezD's talk page. I think the partial block functionality allows for that. Canterbury Tail talk 15:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

As you wish. I asked a good-faith question and got schlepped to AN yet again. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you really this oblivious and missing the actual point here? Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I know you're smart enough to know what WP:IDHT is, Bugs.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the iban would be a better call, since if BB already posted on their talk page after saying they would avoid them, I find the likelihood of BB seeking them out in article space to be fairly high. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Interaction ban - Baseball Bugs, I am imposing a 1-way interaction ban on you with AldezD. You may not interact with AldezD. Copying from WP:IBAN, this includes, but is not limited to,

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:
*edit each other's user and user talk pages;
*reply to each other in discussions;
*make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
*undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
*use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

The ban will be in effect for 6 months. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

No, make it permanent. I asked a good-faith question and got an "F.U." as a response. I don't ever want anything to do with that editor again... EVER. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Process question: can admins impose these without a !vote? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think !votes are needed to respond to red-line warning violations. WaltCip-(talk) 15:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe especially if the target agrees with it. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You had a chance to avoid them before, as you said you would, and you didn't keep your word. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This is my punishment for assuming good faith. No matter. I've asked for advice elsewhere now. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, just a non-administrator civilian here, but I think the proper interpretation is that this is the formalization of a remedy to which Baseball Bugs had previously consented. As such, to my mind, no !vote necessary. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I feel that the iban is likely the best case scenario here. If this was left open for discussion on a remedy, I believe a block would have been far more likely. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay. The previous i-ban discussion last 9 days and had clear community consensus for a remedy of some sort. Given the violation of that remedy, this seems like an appropriate enforcement of that consensus. If anyone objects, please let me know and we can do a full 24-hour !vote. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Just make the iban permanent and we can be done with this. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, it's indefinite now. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)