User talk:Display name 99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Display name 99 (talk | contribs) at 14:35, 5 July 2021 (→‎Reviewing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegations

@Display name 99: Hi Display name 99, I'm MagicatthemovieS. You might remember me - you passed my nomination of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife as a good article. Since we work well together, I was wondering f you might like to check out two articles which I recently nominated to reach good article status - Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegations. Let me know if you are interested in either article or both of them.

Thanks, ~ MagicatthemovieS

Andrew Jackson revisited

Undid your reversion because it appears to have been performed in error—the passage in question concerns Andrew Jackson, not John C. Calhoun.

Unblock request

Hello Iredescent. I would appreciate it if you would please read over the following message, and, if it is the appropriate venue, post it to AN/I on my behalf for the community to respond to. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that the Wikipedia community consider lifting my block.

The editor who started the AN/I thread calling for my block cited a few diffs, and a few more were later added in the AN/I thread. I do not apologize for the substance of my comments in either the diffs that were provided or later on in the AN/I thread that I did not already delete. I continue to feel that a double standard is being used to apply WP:NOTAFORUM, where editors on the progressive left are able to say whatever they want on talk pages, but conservatives are held to a different standard. I stand by the comparison that I made to Black Lives Matter in one of the diffs. With regard to accusations that I supported a white supremacist organization, I am unaware of anything that would classify the Proud Boys as racist or white supremacist. Their leader isn’t even white. He’s Afro-Hispanic. I’ve never heard of a white supremacist group with a black person as its leader.

Again, while I don't apologize for the substance of any still-existing comments, I do apologize for my tone. Saying things such as “So let me get this straight...How absurd” and making reference to editors living in "fantasy land" is rude, impolite, and not conducive to good discussion. I will work to avoid it in the future should I be allowed to continue editing. I didn't help myself very much through my behavior in the AN/I thread. But while I do see that some of my behavior on talk pages has been problematic, I find the idea that it warranted an indefinite block, without even a warning, to be so ridiculous, vengeful, and agenda-driven that I hope I can partially be excused for getting a little bit upset at such an extreme suggestion. Being rude once or twice on talk pages isn’t good, but it shouldn’t get someone thrown off of Wikipedia.

I understand that most editors in the previous thread who did not support an indefinite block did support a topic ban on post-1932 American politics. I don’t think that an editor mouthing off a couple of times on talk pages is something that requires a topic ban just because he has the "wrong" beliefs, especially without a prior warning. So what I instead propose is that I make a promise to behave more civilly on talk pages and to focus on articles that don’t relate to contemporary American politics, with the knowledge that a topic ban may follow if I do not do this. I have one article that I plan to nominate for featured article status, and that can be my next major project. If a topic ban is imposed as a condition for my return, I promise to abide by it, and I understand the immediate consequences if I do not.

A number of editors argued that based on my supposedly poor grasp of reality with regard to matters concerning the present day that I should not be trusted to edit any articles on Wikipedia whatsoever. Of course, I would dispute their judgment about my grasp of reality, but even if they are correct that I am totally wrong in what I have said about contemporary America, the claim that I can’t be allowed to write about something that happened in the Middle Ages or early American history, which is what most of my featured articles and good articles are about, based on my views on current events cannot simply be made with no evidence supporting it. It must be proven through an examination of my editing record. Therefore, I request that those editors who still wish to publicly hold that position examine my featured articles and good articles to search for evidence that my positions on contemporary matters make me unsuited to writing any article here. I will answer any questions on my talk page about anything that I have ever written on Wikipedia that are raised without the assumption of bad faith. If these editors cannot find anything problematic in my contributions, I think it would be best that they cease to make these arguments.

Thank you.

Pinging Iredescent again. Display name 99 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formal unblock request

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).

Display name 99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My block was imposed after a community response on AN/I. Therefore, the administrator looking into my request for unblock might consider posting it there for the community to review. I was blocked after allegedly supporting racist extremist groups on talk pages and using talk pages as a forum to advance my personal political ideology. The editor who started the AN/I thread calling for my block cited a few diffs, and a few more were later added in the AN/I thread. I do not apologize for the substance of my comments in either the diffs that were provided or later on in the AN/I thread that I did not already delete. I continue to feel that a double standard is being used to apply WP:NOTAFORUM, where editors on the progressive left are able to say whatever they want on talk pages, but conservatives are held to a different standard. I stand by the comparison that I made to Black Lives Matter in one of the diffs. With regard to accusations that I supported a white supremacist organization, I am unaware of anything that would classify the Proud Boys as racist or white supremacist. Their leader isn’t even white. He’s Afro-Hispanic. I’ve never heard of a white supremacist group with a black person as its leader.

Again, while I don't apologize for the substance of any still-existing comments, I do apologize for my tone. Saying things such as “So let me get this straight...How absurd” and making reference to editors living in "fantasy land" is rude, impolite, and not conducive to good discussion. I will work to avoid it in the future should I be allowed to continue editing. I didn't help myself very much through my behavior in the AN/I thread. But while I do see that some of my behavior on talk pages has been problematic, I find the idea that it warranted an indefinite block, without even a warning, to be so ridiculous, vengeful, and agenda-driven that I hope I can partially be excused for getting a little bit upset at such an extreme suggestion. Being rude once or twice on talk pages isn’t good, but it shouldn’t get someone thrown off of Wikipedia.

I understand that most editors in the previous thread who did not support an indefinite block did support a topic ban on post-1932 American politics. I don’t think that an editor mouthing off a couple of times on talk pages is something that requires a topic ban just because he has the "wrong" beliefs, especially without a prior warning. So what I instead propose is that I make a promise to behave more civilly on talk pages and to focus on articles that don’t relate to contemporary American politics, with the knowledge that a topic ban may follow if I do not do this. I have one article that I plan to nominate for featured article status, and that can be my next major project. If a topic ban is imposed as a condition for my return, I promise to abide by it, and I understand the immediate consequences if I do not.

A number of editors argued that based on my supposedly poor grasp of reality with regard to matters concerning the present day that I should not be trusted to edit any articles on Wikipedia whatsoever. Of course, I would dispute their judgment about my grasp of reality, but even if they are correct that I am totally wrong in what I have said about contemporary America, the claim that I can’t be allowed to write about something that happened in the Middle Ages or early American history, which is what most of my featured articles and good articles are about, based on my views on current events cannot simply be made with no evidence supporting it. It must be proven through an examination of my editing record. Therefore, I request that those editors who still wish to publicly hold that position or the administrator reviewing my block examine my featured articles and good articles to search for evidence that my positions on contemporary matters make me unsuited to writing any article here. I will answer any questions on my talk page about anything that I have ever written on Wikipedia that are raised without the assumption of bad faith. Otherwise, I think it is best that these arguments be dropped. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2021 (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.

I will be away from home and without regular access to a computer until late April, so if any administrator ever gets to this, please do not expect me to respond to anything before then. Display name 99 (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent: I have little understanding of American politics, but I thought it was important to mention here that Display name 99 has reviewed some of my Buddhist articles on Wikipedia, which is rather unusual for someone accused of being a racist or supremacist. Especially since he wrote he was a practicing Catholic. Speaking out of experience, I can say that only a minority of Wiki editors of religious articles review articles about other religions. For what it's worth.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Farang Rak Tham. As I had said, I would be away from my computer until April, and so I only recently saw this comment. I am indeed a practicing Catholic, but I think that it is often good for people to have at least an awareness of the existence and beliefs of other religions. This can give someone a better understanding of the world and to interact with people better. Yes, a white supremacist probably wouldn't be reviewing those articles. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on quickly skimming this, it seems that your unblock request is one of the oldest - while you are not meant to go through UTRS if you still have talk page access, you might try at some point (perhaps your case slipped through the cracks?), particularly given that almost 2 months have passed and your block was meant to be of preventative and temporary nature. Best, Caius G. (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, I do not fully understand your reasons for the procedural decline of my unblock request. I believe that I answered all of the questions that you laid out.

  • I stated that I would edit constructively in the future and avoid the type of behavior that led to my block.
  • I made it clear that I understood what I had been blocked for: "I was blocked after allegedly supporting racist extremist groups on talk pages and using talk pages as a forum to advance my personal political ideology." I added that inflammatory comments that I had made on the AN/I thread contributed to my block and expressed regret for them.
  • I said that I will not continue to cause damage and disruption: "Again, while I don't apologize for the substance of any still-existing comments, I do apologize for my tone...I will work to avoid it in the future should I be allowed to continue editing...I make a promise to behave more civilly on talk pages and to focus on articles that don’t relate to contemporary American politics, with the knowledge that a topic ban may follow if I do not do this."
  • I said that I would make useful contributions by not focusing on articles about modern American politics: "I have one article that I plan to nominate for featured article status, and that can be my next major project." My entire last paragraph was about how I can still make useful contributions in spite of what I had been blocked for.

Please either take another look at my request or explain in greater detail why it was inadequate. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC) NinjaRobotPirate, to be clear, I am not demanding that you reverse your decision. But I am a little bit confused as to how exactly my wording is inadequate. I would like for you to explain a little bit more so that I will be better prepared to make another request. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second unblock request

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Display name 99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My last unblock request was denied but I felt that the reasons given for denial were unclear, and my request to have them clarified was ignored. See above. Without much guidance, I have only slightly reworded my request. So if this does not meet proper form, please be patient.

My block was imposed after a community response on AN/I. Therefore, the administrator looking into my request for unblock might consider posting it there for the community to review.

I was blocked after allegedly supporting racist extremist groups on talk pages and using talk pages as a forum to advance my personal political ideology. The editor who started the AN/I thread calling for my block cited a few diffs, and a few more were later added in the AN/I thread. I do not apologize for the substance of my comments in either the diffs that were provided or later on in the AN/I thread that I did not already delete. I continue to feel that a double standard is being used to apply WP:NOTAFORUM, where conservative editors are held to a different standard. I stand by the comparison that I made to Black Lives Matter in one of the diffs. With regard to accusations that I supported a white supremacist organization, I am unaware of anything that would classify the Proud Boys as racist or white supremacist.

Again, while I don't apologize for the substance of any still-existing comments, I do apologize for my tone. Saying things such as “So let me get this straight...How absurd” and making reference to editors living in "fantasy land" is rude, impolite, and not conducive to good discussion. I will work to avoid it in the future should I be allowed to continue editing. I didn't help myself very much through my behavior in the AN/I thread. But while I do see that some of my behavior on talk pages has been problematic, I find the idea that it warranted an indefinite block, without even a warning, to be so ridiculous, vengeful, and agenda-driven that I hope I can partially be excused for getting a little bit upset at such an extreme suggestion. Being rude once or twice on talk pages isn’t good, but it shouldn’t get someone thrown off of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I regret many of the things that I posted on the AN/I thread, especially the overall tone that I adopted.

I understand that most editors in the previous thread who did not support an indefinite block did support a topic ban on post-1932 American politics. I don’t think that an editor mouthing off a couple of times on talk pages is something that requires a topic ban just because he has the "wrong" beliefs, especially without a prior warning. So what I instead propose is that I make a promise to behave more civilly on talk pages and to focus on articles that don’t relate to contemporary American politics, with the knowledge that a topic ban may follow if I do not do this. I have one article that I plan to nominate for featured article status, and that can be my next major project. If a topic ban is imposed as a condition for my return, I promise to abide by it, and I understand the immediate consequences if I do not.

A number of editors argued that based on my supposedly poor grasp of reality with regard to matters concerning the present day that I should not be trusted to edit any articles on Wikipedia whatsoever. Of course, I would dispute their judgment about my grasp of reality, but even if they are correct that I am totally wrong in what I have said about contemporary America, the claim that I can’t be allowed to write about something that happened in the Middle Ages or early American history, which is what most of my featured articles and good articles are about, based on my views on current events cannot simply be made with no evidence supporting it. It must be proven through an examination of my editing record. Therefore, I request that those editors who still wish to publicly hold that position or the administrator reviewing my block examine my featured articles and good articles to search for evidence that my positions on contemporary matters make me unsuited to writing any article here. I will answer any questions on my talk page about anything that I have ever written on Wikipedia that are raised without the assumption of bad faith. Otherwise, I think it is best that these arguments be dropped. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=My last unblock request was denied but I felt that the reasons given for denial were unclear, and my request to have them clarified was ignored. See above. Without much guidance, I have only slightly reworded my request. So if this does not meet proper form, please be patient. My block was imposed after a community response on AN/I. Therefore, the administrator looking into my request for unblock might consider posting it there for the community to review. I was blocked after allegedly supporting racist extremist groups on talk pages and using talk pages as a forum to advance my personal political ideology. The editor who started the AN/I thread calling for my block cited a few diffs, and a few more were later added in the AN/I thread. I do not apologize for the substance of my comments in either the diffs that were provided or later on in the AN/I thread that I did not already delete. I continue to feel that a double standard is being used to apply WP:NOTAFORUM, where conservative editors are held to a different standard. I stand by the comparison that I made to Black Lives Matter in one of the diffs. With regard to accusations that I supported a white supremacist organization, I am unaware of anything that would classify the Proud Boys as racist or white supremacist. Again, while I don't apologize for the substance of any still-existing comments, I do apologize for my tone. Saying things such as “So let me get this straight...How absurd” and making reference to editors living in "fantasy land" is rude, impolite, and not conducive to good discussion. I will work to avoid it in the future should I be allowed to continue editing. I didn't help myself very much through my behavior in the AN/I thread. But while I do see that some of my behavior on talk pages has been problematic, I find the idea that it warranted an indefinite block, without even a warning, to be so ridiculous, vengeful, and agenda-driven that I hope I can partially be excused for getting a little bit upset at such an extreme suggestion. Being rude once or twice on talk pages isn’t good, but it shouldn’t get someone thrown off of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I regret many of the things that I posted on the AN/I thread, especially the overall tone that I adopted. I understand that most editors in the previous thread who did not support an indefinite block did support a topic ban on post-1932 American politics. I don’t think that an editor mouthing off a couple of times on talk pages is something that requires a topic ban just because he has the "wrong" beliefs, especially without a prior warning. So what I instead propose is that I make a promise to behave more civilly on talk pages and to focus on articles that don’t relate to contemporary American politics, with the knowledge that a topic ban may follow if I do not do this. I have one article that I plan to nominate for featured article status, and that can be my next major project. If a topic ban is imposed as a condition for my return, I promise to abide by it, and I understand the immediate consequences if I do not. A number of editors argued that based on my supposedly poor grasp of reality with regard to matters concerning the present day that I should not be trusted to edit any articles on Wikipedia whatsoever. Of course, I would dispute their judgment about my grasp of reality, but even if they are correct that I am totally wrong in what I have said about contemporary America, the claim that I can’t be allowed to write about something that happened in the Middle Ages or early American history, which is what most of my featured articles and good articles are about, based on my views on current events cannot simply be made with no evidence supporting it. It must be proven through an examination of my editing record. Therefore, I request that those editors who still wish to publicly hold that position or the administrator reviewing my block examine my featured articles and good articles to search for evidence that my positions on contemporary matters make me unsuited to writing any article here. I will answer any questions on my talk page about anything that I have ever written on Wikipedia that are raised without the assumption of bad faith. Otherwise, I think it is best that these arguments be dropped. Thank you. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 20:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=My last unblock request was denied but I felt that the reasons given for denial were unclear, and my request to have them clarified was ignored. See above. Without much guidance, I have only slightly reworded my request. So if this does not meet proper form, please be patient. My block was imposed after a community response on AN/I. Therefore, the administrator looking into my request for unblock might consider posting it there for the community to review. I was blocked after allegedly supporting racist extremist groups on talk pages and using talk pages as a forum to advance my personal political ideology. The editor who started the AN/I thread calling for my block cited a few diffs, and a few more were later added in the AN/I thread. I do not apologize for the substance of my comments in either the diffs that were provided or later on in the AN/I thread that I did not already delete. I continue to feel that a double standard is being used to apply WP:NOTAFORUM, where conservative editors are held to a different standard. I stand by the comparison that I made to Black Lives Matter in one of the diffs. With regard to accusations that I supported a white supremacist organization, I am unaware of anything that would classify the Proud Boys as racist or white supremacist. Again, while I don't apologize for the substance of any still-existing comments, I do apologize for my tone. Saying things such as “So let me get this straight...How absurd” and making reference to editors living in "fantasy land" is rude, impolite, and not conducive to good discussion. I will work to avoid it in the future should I be allowed to continue editing. I didn't help myself very much through my behavior in the AN/I thread. But while I do see that some of my behavior on talk pages has been problematic, I find the idea that it warranted an indefinite block, without even a warning, to be so ridiculous, vengeful, and agenda-driven that I hope I can partially be excused for getting a little bit upset at such an extreme suggestion. Being rude once or twice on talk pages isn’t good, but it shouldn’t get someone thrown off of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I regret many of the things that I posted on the AN/I thread, especially the overall tone that I adopted. I understand that most editors in the previous thread who did not support an indefinite block did support a topic ban on post-1932 American politics. I don’t think that an editor mouthing off a couple of times on talk pages is something that requires a topic ban just because he has the "wrong" beliefs, especially without a prior warning. So what I instead propose is that I make a promise to behave more civilly on talk pages and to focus on articles that don’t relate to contemporary American politics, with the knowledge that a topic ban may follow if I do not do this. I have one article that I plan to nominate for featured article status, and that can be my next major project. If a topic ban is imposed as a condition for my return, I promise to abide by it, and I understand the immediate consequences if I do not. A number of editors argued that based on my supposedly poor grasp of reality with regard to matters concerning the present day that I should not be trusted to edit any articles on Wikipedia whatsoever. Of course, I would dispute their judgment about my grasp of reality, but even if they are correct that I am totally wrong in what I have said about contemporary America, the claim that I can’t be allowed to write about something that happened in the Middle Ages or early American history, which is what most of my featured articles and good articles are about, based on my views on current events cannot simply be made with no evidence supporting it. It must be proven through an examination of my editing record. Therefore, I request that those editors who still wish to publicly hold that position or the administrator reviewing my block examine my featured articles and good articles to search for evidence that my positions on contemporary matters make me unsuited to writing any article here. I will answer any questions on my talk page about anything that I have ever written on Wikipedia that are raised without the assumption of bad faith. Otherwise, I think it is best that these arguments be dropped. Thank you. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 20:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=My last unblock request was denied but I felt that the reasons given for denial were unclear, and my request to have them clarified was ignored. See above. Without much guidance, I have only slightly reworded my request. So if this does not meet proper form, please be patient. My block was imposed after a community response on AN/I. Therefore, the administrator looking into my request for unblock might consider posting it there for the community to review. I was blocked after allegedly supporting racist extremist groups on talk pages and using talk pages as a forum to advance my personal political ideology. The editor who started the AN/I thread calling for my block cited a few diffs, and a few more were later added in the AN/I thread. I do not apologize for the substance of my comments in either the diffs that were provided or later on in the AN/I thread that I did not already delete. I continue to feel that a double standard is being used to apply WP:NOTAFORUM, where conservative editors are held to a different standard. I stand by the comparison that I made to Black Lives Matter in one of the diffs. With regard to accusations that I supported a white supremacist organization, I am unaware of anything that would classify the Proud Boys as racist or white supremacist. Again, while I don't apologize for the substance of any still-existing comments, I do apologize for my tone. Saying things such as “So let me get this straight...How absurd” and making reference to editors living in "fantasy land" is rude, impolite, and not conducive to good discussion. I will work to avoid it in the future should I be allowed to continue editing. I didn't help myself very much through my behavior in the AN/I thread. But while I do see that some of my behavior on talk pages has been problematic, I find the idea that it warranted an indefinite block, without even a warning, to be so ridiculous, vengeful, and agenda-driven that I hope I can partially be excused for getting a little bit upset at such an extreme suggestion. Being rude once or twice on talk pages isn’t good, but it shouldn’t get someone thrown off of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I regret many of the things that I posted on the AN/I thread, especially the overall tone that I adopted. I understand that most editors in the previous thread who did not support an indefinite block did support a topic ban on post-1932 American politics. I don’t think that an editor mouthing off a couple of times on talk pages is something that requires a topic ban just because he has the "wrong" beliefs, especially without a prior warning. So what I instead propose is that I make a promise to behave more civilly on talk pages and to focus on articles that don’t relate to contemporary American politics, with the knowledge that a topic ban may follow if I do not do this. I have one article that I plan to nominate for featured article status, and that can be my next major project. If a topic ban is imposed as a condition for my return, I promise to abide by it, and I understand the immediate consequences if I do not. A number of editors argued that based on my supposedly poor grasp of reality with regard to matters concerning the present day that I should not be trusted to edit any articles on Wikipedia whatsoever. Of course, I would dispute their judgment about my grasp of reality, but even if they are correct that I am totally wrong in what I have said about contemporary America, the claim that I can’t be allowed to write about something that happened in the Middle Ages or early American history, which is what most of my featured articles and good articles are about, based on my views on current events cannot simply be made with no evidence supporting it. It must be proven through an examination of my editing record. Therefore, I request that those editors who still wish to publicly hold that position or the administrator reviewing my block examine my featured articles and good articles to search for evidence that my positions on contemporary matters make me unsuited to writing any article here. I will answer any questions on my talk page about anything that I have ever written on Wikipedia that are raised without the assumption of bad faith. Otherwise, I think it is best that these arguments be dropped. Thank you. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 20:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You say, "With regard to accusations that I supported a white supremacist organization, I am unaware of anything that would classify the Proud Boys as racist or white supremacist." Note that my country, Canada, has designated the Proud Boys as a terrorist organisation. That's not the same thing and doesn't directly contradict your statement, but I would certainly not unblock someone supporting what my government believes is a terrorist organisation. I want to be clear, though, I'm not reviewing your unblock request and I'm also explicitly not claiming you support the Proud Boys; I haven't looked at your edits so I can't tell one way or another. It's also entirely plausible that another admin would decide it is reasonable to lift your block with a topic ban around post-1932 American politics. I can easily imagine that being an appropriate course of action here. --Yamla (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My last unblock request was denied but I felt that the reasons given for denial were unclear, and my request to have them clarified was ignored.

To be honest, there wasn't anything to clarify. Your request was open for more than two weeks and no admin felt it appropriate to unblock you or deny the unblock outright. Admins were likely reluctant to spend their time on the matter because you already indicated you would be unavailable to discuss it for more than a month. NinjaRobotPirate declined the unblock on procedural grounds, so you could submit a fresh request when you were available.

As to the rest of your unblock request... well, that statement is a pretty good way to ensure you won't get unblocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HandThatFeeds, did you read the reason for decline? It never mentions the issue of my availability but says that I did not formulate the request properly. Also, I did not say that I would be unavailable until my request had already been open for more than two weeks. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you? It specifically says:
This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action.
I was offering a reason why admins probably didn't take action on your request. Yes, your initial request was open for two weeks, but this is a volunteer site. And, to be quite honest, your statement was not all that reassuring. And then, at that point you said (emphasis mine):
I will be away from home and without regular access to a computer until late April, so if any administrator ever gets to this, please do not expect me to respond to anything before then. Display name 99 (talk) 9:05 am, 2 March 2021
You claimed the reason for the decline was unclear, I clarified for you: no Admin had felt it appropriate to approve or deny your request based on your statement, and then you saying you'd be gone for another month meant Admins were unlikely to bother responding while you were unavailable. So after 2 months NPR closed it. By letting you file a new request, that puts you back at the top of the list for consideration, so they did you a favor.
Also, NPR never said you failed to formulate the request properly, they said you would need to substantially reword your request. That's because just filing the exact same appeal is normally closed without consideration, you need to provide a new explanation for your understanding of what you did wrong & what you will do in the future. At this point, you either need to be patient and wait for an admin to review your request, or go through WP:UTRS if no one takes this up again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HandThatFeeds, again, no mention was made by NPR about my availability, so all of that is conjecture on your part. What I felt was unclear was why my previous explanation of what I will do differently was insufficient and what guidelines I should utilize when rewording it. This is what I asked to have clarified. You are not helping to do so. Please do not comment here again. Display name 99 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, IIRC the "procedural decline" message is not a custom, typed decline, but a template that is used fairly widely. JavaHurricane 04:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JavaHurricane. However, I do wish that I had received a response when I asked why my block received a procedural decline. If there was something wrong with how I worded my request, I would like to have known. Display name 99 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at this a different way. I don't know why anyone did whatever they did but it was entirely reasonable for it to be procedural declined because it had been open for 2 months without anyone reviewing it. It's very common for unblock requests which have been open for months to be procedurally declined and while the reviewing admin may not have explicitly offered any clarification, it's dumb waste of everyone's time, and frankly not helping you in anyway to try an get an explanation for why it was procedurally declined when there were good reasons for it to be procedurally declined i.e. open for 2 months with no action.

As to why it was open for so long ultimately no one can answer that. Realistically if it's been open for so long, I'm fairly sure a number of admins have come across it. You will need to get each one to say why they didn't take any action. By this stage, there's a fair chance many of them will have forgotten. Some may have even forgotten if they reviewed it. They could look at it again but it's quite likely their feelings now won't perfectly mirror how they felt at the time their reviewed it. Then you'd need to look into why those who didn't review it, didn't review it..... In other words, trying to work out exactly why it was open for so long is not only basically impossible, but even if it was it would be even more of a waste of time.

However the above comments offer some good reasons why it's likely no one bothered. An additional point no one seems to have mentioned. You can maybe tell by this I often offer long replies and comments. However I do understand that means the number of people who read them tends to go down quite significantly. Your unblock request was quite long. Perhaps it needed to be, but in any case it likely reduced the number of admins willing to review.

This also ties into the point others made about you being away. If someone was thinking of tackling you request and then found out you were away. so if they had any questions they couldn't expect to receive a response and by the time you replied they may have to refamiliarise themselves with the details, well their willingness to get involved is likely to go down any more.

Ultimately since as I said, I think we can be fairly sure some admins did at least look at it in part. So it likely also means none of them felt the case was clear enough for a rejection. Although this may not be as positive as it seems, it may simply be they were fairly sure the answer was no, but given the length of your request and the need to review the previous discussion etc to be fair to you, they couldn't bother.

It may also be that people find the organisations you support and views you espouse distasteful enough that they feel they cannot be objective and so left it to others. Or that they're confident you don't belong but in fairness to you feel you need some kind of explanation and again, at least a cursory review of what you said, and they don't want to waste their time. In other words, there can be lots of reasons. As I said, expecting a detailed summary of why your request languished for so long is silly. No one owes you an explanation for why they didn't do something.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR version of the above, if your unblock request has been open for 2 months, don't be surprised if it's procedurally declined. If it's been open for 2 months with no real comment or if it's procedurally declined, it likely means it was not enough to convince any admin who read it to unblock you, but also not enough to easily decline. You can ask for further guidance but if you get none, it's no one's fault. You will need to read the guide to appeals, any discussion leading up to your block, and our policies and guidelines and try and work it out yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nil Einne, it's pretty amazing how you can write so much and say absolutely nothing. Display name 99 (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for any reviewing admin

I believe this is thread on ANI that led to this editor being blocked.

I'll throw in my $0.02 for any reviewing admin:

We've had enough drama and it's clear that this user stands by their WP:BATTLE mentality. Based on their prior edits and the comments in the unblock requests, it is clear that they are not here to contribute collaboratively with respect for other users.

I think this editor's plea for a community-based unblock forum is just an attempt at finding some populist support and maybe even WP:Wikilawyering. I think his/her edits pushing their POV speak for themselves. I think the community would be much better served if we skipped any requests for a drama-laden community discussion and the admins did their job as they have with previous unblock requests.

Please decline this latest unblock request and remove talk page access for this user. Toddst1 (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will say for the record that yes; that was the thread. Also, I did not make a plea for a community-based unblock forum. I only thought that because my block was imposed after community consensus that any reviewing administrator might decide that the decision as to whether or not I should return should be left up to the community. I think that it is ultimately the decision of whoever the reviewing administrator is as to whether they make the decision themselves or open it up to community discussion. I did not ask for one or the other. Display name 99 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing

Hi there,

I've thread the ANI thread, the long unblock request, the comments about process, and the comments by the user above.

In regards to why it was procedurally closed, I suspect that it was a combination of length but also what I might call "viable appeal, non-viable tone" - in effect, the unblock comes across that while it covers the minimum bases, it screams that the editor will cause further problems down the line.

DN99, I'd like to ask whether you think this edit was purely a tone issue, a "content" issue, and also the soapboxing concerns.

Additionally, a majority of editors in the ANI thread specifically opposed an indefinite block but ultimately backed Iri's due to your interaction during the block discussion. The blocking admin didn't feel you were a systemically problematic editor, but there are major concerns on how you'd handle conflict in the future - which may include attempts by several politically-opposing editors to bait you.

As a further note, I don't see anything by this user that suggests that Talk Page access should in any way be restricted. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nosebagbear. The issue there was content. It was written out of frustration with editors who, in my opinion, were advocating unduly harsh penalties in order to kick out a productive editor simply because they disagreed with his views. The post was designed to goad editors who had voted for a topic ban to change their votes to supporting an indefinite block, which at the time I felt was better than receiving a topic ban. I no longer feel that way, and even as I did, it was wrong and stupid to post something like that. As far as future conflict is concerned, the main issue would be for me to moderate my tone and keep a level head, which I failed to do in the diffs cited by the person who opened the AN/I thread. I do not feel that a post-1932 topic ban should be imposed because I do not think that what I have done wrong rises to that level of severity. However, I would abide by one if it is imposed. But even if it is not imposed, I intend to voluntarily limit myself to primarily editing non-contemporary political articles for a time, which lessens the potential for conflict. Display name 99 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'd agree that removing TPA here is not appropriate.
I'd support an unblock, maybe (very weakly) paired with a topic ban on post-1932 politics. I believe that this would eliminate the potential for disruption.
Frankly, it seems like Display Name 99 regrets the behavior that led to the block, understands why it was wrong, and agrees not to repeat it. Not sure what we're preventing at this point. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 02:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since January, WP:AP2 has only covered US politics as far back as 1992 (rather than 1932). I'd be in favour of unblocking, with a TBan covering that topic area; I imagine that with a decent spell of uncontroversial editing after an unblock, the TBan could be successfully appealed. Girth Summit (blether) 11:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DN99, I'm inclined to agree that a TBAN (American Politics, 1992 onwards) - not 1932, as indeed that has changed recently. Would you agree to such a restriction? There's no actual obligation for us to use round numbers, and since SQL thinks the need is less than critical, I would say it could be appealed to the community at WP:AN after 4 months, assuming significant productive editing in other fields. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear, I would reluctantly agree to such a restriction as a condition for my return to editing. Display name 99 (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Display_name_99&oldid=1032100241"