User talk:BlueSalix

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Dao is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Dao until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Justeditingtoday (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Justeditingtoday (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored your indefinite block. Having checked the diffs provided by Justeditingtoday, I agree with his interpretation of those diffs, and having checked several page histories that he didn't link, I see confirmation of his claims. Stalking another editor in revenge for the other editor's actions is reprehensible, it's compounded because you misrepresented others' actions as edit-warring despite your own actions, and the whole time your edit war was an attempt to enforce the existence of an article relying on nothing but primary sources. You're welcome to request unblock, of course, but unless you're doing that, I suggest that you make no edits to this talk page: when you've gotten yourself a second indef block, abuse is likely to result in a speedy removal of talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Short Version
After six years on Wikipedia I have been suddenly, and indefinitely, blocked for "stalking" Justeditingtoday and violating WP:PRIMARY. Here is the editor interaction report covering my and Justeditingtoday's career on Wikipedia: [1] I think a link to the interaction report alone should disabuse the notion that I've been stalking him or her, however, to be thorough, I will offer a fuller description of events, which follows. Long Version
Background - violation of WP:HARASSMENT: :For the first time ever, today, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him or her when he/she redirected an article I'd authored [2]. Until 30 minutes ago, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages. :In preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history and saw he/she was purging vast quantities of RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a UQ academic who specializes in disability access legislation named Paul Harpur). Seeing that dozens of high-quality RS were being removed sans discussion I proceeded to make exactly one (1) revert to an edit Justeditingtoday made (here: [3]) and exactly one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he/she'd initiated (here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp); in other words, a total of two (2) edits on a single topic. :That is the full and entire extent of BlueSalix-initiated interaction with Justeditingtoday in either mainspace or article/policy discussion pages, a fact verifiable by review of the interaction log. Background - violation of WP:PRIMARY: :In addition to stalking, the blocking admin also stated [4] I was being indeffed for creating an article that "relied on nothing but primary sources". Here is the version of the article in question as it existed when I created it: [5]. It references four (4) sources as follows: Reuters, the Chicago Business Journal, People Magazine, ABC News. A Wikipedia admin should know what a WP:PRIMARY is and know that neither Reuters, Chicago Business Journal, People Magazine, nor ABC News are PRIMARY (let alone all of them). Reason for unblock: # The standard for WP:HARASSMENT is "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." As evidenced, I did not join multiple topics, I joined one (1) topic Justeditingtoday was editing and made two (2) edits in that topic. In neither a literal nor spirited reading of our policy can two (2) edits in a single topic meet the high standard to prove stalking. Further, my two (2) edits were not done to "inhibit their work" as, by the standard of a reasonable person, there is a fairly destructive spree of vandalism into which my two (2) edits were attempting to intervene. # I have demonstrated the blocking admin's second reason for the indef, my violation of WP:PRIMARY, is materially false and/or incorrect.

Decline reason:

• Before I say anything else, I will mention that your listing of several administrators and asking them to "review" this was probably an unwise step, especially doing so together with the remark "it appears they may have some background with the blocking admin's previously reverted 'fast blocks'". That could be interpreted as an attempt to get a favourable review by choosing to have your unblock request reviewed by an administrator who you think is likely to be opposed to the blocking administrator on the basis of their having disagreed with him in the past. If that were what you intended, it would be a particularly bad kind of canvassing and admin shopping, and would be further reason for keeping the block, if it were anywhere near to being a borderline decision. * That said, it was not a borderline decision. I have made extensive checks of the relevant editing history, and what I saw did not support your interpretation at all. For example, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp you posted a fairly long message which was 100% an ad hominem attack on Justeditingtoday, with no attempt at all to make any contribution to the discussion of the actions of the editor about whom the report was filed. That was not the action of someone who because of discovering disruptive editing by an editor has checked that person's editing history and made legitimate edits on unrelated matters because of further problematic edits that emerged in that history: in the context of your other editing it is the action of someone out to oppose and attack another editor out of infantile revenge. Then there is the edit-warring warning. You did not say on what page the edit-warring was supposed to be taking place, so I have had to spend considerable time checking through every page that Justeditingtoday had recently edited. There was no edit-warring by Justeditingtoday on any of them. Those are just two examples of your approach to that editor, but there was more. The block was fully justified on those grounds alone. * On the other part of the block reasons, not only did you edit-war but you even included a 3RR warning in an edit summary on one of your edits in that edit-war, indicating unambiguously that you were fully aware of the situation. Block justified on those grounds alone. * Two separate reasons each of which would justify a block = more than sufficient grounds * That leaves the question of whether the block should have been indefinite. The answer to that is that your past editing history and block log show that both this kind of vindictiveness to editors you disagree with and edit-warring are things you have been doing for years, and that neither talk page messages from other editors, discussions of your behaviour on notice boards, nor blocks have any effect on discouraging such disruptive editing, so there is no reason whatever to suppose that this time it would be different, that a limited block would persuade you to change your approach. Enough is enough. Moreover, what you have said in this unblock request confirms that you are not going to change your approach: far from acknowledging the problems with your editing and undertaking to change, you deny that there are problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2017 (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 am requesting Coffee, Sphilbrick, JamesBWatson or AniMate review this, and/or escalate if needed, since it appears they may have some background with the blocking admin's previously reverted "fast blocks". BlueSalix (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with James B Watson's opening comment. While I did not look into the details of the rationale behind the declination of the unblock request, it sounded pretty solid to me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• JamesBWatson, Nyttend, I came to this talk page from the David Dao affair at DRV, fully expecting to find a block notice for BLP violations. I have not followed the stalking accusations/diffs, but I was somewhat surprised to find no mention of that now-deleted BLP violation/exercise in victim-blaming. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) In my opinion, BlueSalix' actions toward other users, e.g. the stalking/hounding/whateveryouwanttocallit accusations made by others (which I investigated and believe to be completely accurate), combined with two previous blocks for edit-warring and a previous indefinite block for "personal attacks, calumny; trollish evasion and procrastination", were sufficient grounds for an indefinite block, regardless of the contents of the David Dao article. That's why I didn't significantly address the subject. (2) However, I did address the subject in passing. The article was based on primary sources, such as news reports and court documents, rather than the secondary sources demanded by the BLP policy (given the recentness of the event, anything published currently is still a primary source; scholars can't compile and publish a comprehensive view of the news reports and the other circumstances of the event when it's still ongoing), and to that part of the BLP policy my block message's "relying on nothing but primary sources" link pointed. Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! After reading this version even I have to admit I seem like a pretty bad guy!

• In continuing point of clarification: the previous indef for "procrastination" was an extension of a 48-hour block - not a separate and unique instance. In six years on WP I've been blocked on two occasions, one was a 60 hour one, and the second was an indef applied during a period in which I had gone several weeks without editing (due to a family illness) to ensure I addressed an admin's questions prior to resuming editing.
• Also to clarify: in the interest of deescalation (as I explained in my appeal) I agreed to acknowledge "news sources" (Reuters, People, ABC News, and the Chicago Business Journal) are PRIMARY. I understand you've now expanded on that to say that they are PRIMARY because it was a current events article (in my defense, in six years on WP I've only seen current events articles referenced to "news sources"; I really do hope someone alerts the editors working on Palm Sunday church bombings - and hundreds of other current events articles right now - that "news sources" are PRIMARY as I truly don't believe this is a widely known interpretation of our policy). I understand you've now expanded this charge to include what are probably more conventionally known as PRIMARY ("court documents") as well.
• Vis a vis the latest claim that I wrote the article based off "court documents": IIRC one (1) document sourced directly from the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensing was used once (1) to establish a non-interpretative fact (alma mater). That's probably important to contextualize as when someone just reads "court documents" they'd be inclined to think the entire article was based off three dozen docket sheets. The lack of diffs in support of continually evolving charges that are being presented in slightly hyperbolic terms may be part of the problem I'm having with wrapping my head around how to mount an effective appeal against this interesting block, so I apologize. It's a bit like trying to defend oneself against a charge of homicide for "murdering someone, somewhere, at some point."

Thanks,

BlueSalix (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: The block log reason was "Edit-warring and stalking", so I concentrated on those. However, I certainly do agree that other aspects of BlueSalix's behaviour in relation to that article, in addition to the edit warring and stalking, were also unacceptable in several ways, and they do provide yet further reasons why the editor should not be unblocked. In fact, if I tried to list everything in the editor's history which might reasonable be considered to contribute to reasons for blocking, it would take me quite a while. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, just for my edification - even if the points of my appeal are considered valid by a reviewing admin, my block should still not be lifted because I didn't address reasons for my block that I wasn't informed of, but that I should have inferred? I guess I'm on double-secret probation. BlueSalix (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I respectfully disagree with you this was a case of "BLP violations." The article, in the form I constructed it was NPOV, not UNDUE, written in encyclopedic verbiage, and sourced entirely to RS. The consensus was that it didn't meet WP:BLP1E, not that is was some type of debased slander against the subject. And it was a consensus (but not, by any stretch, unanimous; several experienced editors opined "keep"). But to suggest the article was somehow an attack page, as some (not you) have creatively reimagined it, is highly revisionist. There's nothing in my history to suggest I have ever created an "attack page," there or ever. I frequently create articles in response to items and people in the news, that's my M.O. (see: Phil Talmadge, Cody Legebokoff, Conrad James, David Correia, Marvin Klegman, Sabrina Erdely, NK News, Curry Without Worry, Ciabatta Bacon Cheeseburger, etc.). Most of the time they work, a few times the community has decided they don't. I live with it and move on to new articles in those cases; that's the essence of collaboration. There is nothing with respect to the article in question that suggests it was anything other than a GF contribution by me. We can have disagreements on things like application of BLP1E and resolve those disagreements via AFD. But, if after every AFD, the victors go charging through the ranks of the defeated lobbing off their heads and crying "Your disagreement with consensus is proof of non-GF - death to you!" then the only editor that will be left here six months from now is Jimbo. There's been an evolving trend lately to apply scorched earth after policy application disagreements that is highly troubling, more so now that my yurt just got torched.

Ultimately, though, I can really only be expected to defend myself against the charges as they're initially advanced at the point of block, like the charge that I based the article entirely on WP:PRIMARY (which I've, against my better judgment and all evidence to the contrary, fallen on my sword and admitted to in interest of deescalation). But I'd go red in the face trying to defend myself against an ever-evolving list of allegations that are gradually dribbled out in the days and weeks after the block, like the newly introduced one that there were unspecified BLP violations. Thanks for taking the time to weigh-in. BlueSalix (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BlueSalix, you don't have to respectfully disagree--you can just disagree. :) If Dao's article is a case of BLP1E, then only the 1E is relevant to an encyclopedia. The rest is not. And that 1E had nothing to do with the case: he wasn't selected (one hopes) because of something in his past: nothing in his past "led" to this, with the possible exception of his race; let's hope that it doesn't turn out that he was picked because of his race. That article you wrote up is of the same kind that I saw in my local newspaper and really even in the Washington Post: sure, you can write it on the basis of reliable sources, in what at first glance seems to be a neutral tone, but a. we're not the news, meaning we don't necessarily report what the news reports, and b. BLP demands we exercise judgment--writing up someone's past with all the mistakes made when that past has nothing to do with anything is a violation. If we don't exercise that judgment we are victim blaming.

  You focus on the alphabet soup we find in the BLP policy, and this is frequently done in similar articles, but I ask you to read the second paragraph, the one that starts "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." That someone's privacy has been violated elsewhere doesn't mean that we can follow suit, and I think (hope!) Black Kite, who closed the AfD and rightfully deleted the article before placing a redirect, would agree with this. Mattinbgn was absolutely correct in their comment at the AfD.

  Look, I wrote up someone years ago, some politician from Georgia or South Carolina, and it turned out all I could write up was negative stuff, besides some basic and boring facts--but this was a public figure, who did some bad shit related to his (elected) position--if he had done it in a different context, and those charges themselves weren't enough to make him notable (that's 1E for you, really), I wouldn't have written it into the article. This is not such a case, and it is equivalent to including similar "background" for Shooting of Michael Brown, which is usually done to suggest that he asked to be shot, he had it coming--the kind of stuff you see in Facebook threats. We should be more careful than that.

  I am not saying that you are saying that Dao asked for it, but I am saying that we should be careful enough to not feed that mill. BTW I am also not saying that this was a BLP violation worthy of an indef block--but I am saying that this was a BLP violation. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, first, I do respectfully disagree. Second, any BLP that is ultimately deleted for BLP1E is a BLP violation, true. However, there is a margin for frank discussion as sometimes these issues aren't black and white. In my Keep rationale I said "as per WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". I didn't say "LOL at this guy, let's make him look like a shitball!" Most of the community disagreed with me (and some editors like Tdl1060, User:Everyking, Andrew Davidson agreed). I'm cool with that. Most of our policies require us to apply human judgment. I believe it's possible two reasonable people can come to different conclusions looking at the same set of facts, use a process like AFD to determine which is right, and then move on without having to execute the guy who was wrong. I passionately put forward my position but, when the consensus was determined, I closed the book and moved on. The article could have simply been deleted. We didn't need to end the discussion by impaling someone's head on a pike. This wasn't that kind of BLP case. I can't believe Everyking and the other "Keep" !voters were simply bamboozled by my conniving sliminess. I can't believe you have never !voted in the minority on a BLP case; that I'm the only editor on WP who has less than 100% on AFD !votes.

But I'm going to make a hard stop there because this isn't what I was blocked for so it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion.

I was blocked for three specific reasons: (a) writing an article based on PRIMARY sources (using a highly unconventional interpretation by which ABC News, Reuters, the Chicago Business Journal, and People Magazine are PRIMARY), (b) aggravated stalking demonstrated by a total of two edits, (c) one use of the 3RR template when only 2RRs had occurred. My disciplinary record entering into that included blocks on two independent incidents over a six-year period. To suggest this warrants ending my WP career is simply, and totally, indefensible and to suggest this is a necessary preventative measure to protect WP defies logic. And, I think, you agree. I'm pretty sure AniMate, who said "I have to say I think this is overkill. A block may have been in order, but hopefully cooler heads will prevail tomorrow. I think BlueSalix can and should come through this." agrees. I think, in fact, the others here agree as evidenced by the sudden interest in moving the discussion away from the three items for which I was actually blocked and instead discussing what has been vaguely referred to (sans diffs) as "other aspects" of my edit history. The takeaway it seems, is that "he's not a nice guy and he's probably guilty of something, so even if we didn't get the specifics right, all that matters is he got his just dessert." This is definitely not a case where "Talk Before You Block" was even considered. BlueSalix (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlueSalix/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BlueSalix/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:BlueSalix/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni - thanks for the notice. For the record, I do not object to deletion, this was workspace and - since the article proper has now been deleted - I agree that it makes sense to delete this as well. Please feel free to blank that page pending a decision to REVDEL it. Thanks again - BlueSalix (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've went ahead and blanked it with a G7 tag. Thanks for the ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling, TonyBallioni. BlueSalix (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been indefinitely blocked for stalking Justeditingtoday, violating WP:PRIMARY, and inappropriate discharge of a 3RR template on a Talk page.

---

Statement of Facts
Statement of facts - violation of WP:HARASSMENT: :For the first time ever, yesterday, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him or her when he/she redirected an article I'd authored [6]. Until 30 minutes prior to the block, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages. :In preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history, as is necessary, and saw he/she was removing large amounts RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a UQ academic named Paul Harpur). I proceeded to make one (1) revert to an edit Justeditingtoday made (here: [7]) and one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he/she'd initiated (here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp); in other words, a total of two (2) edits on a single topic. :That is the full and entire extent of BlueSalix-initiated interaction with Justeditingtoday in either mainspace or article/policy discussion pages, a fact verifiable by review of the interaction log. [8] Statements of facts - violation of WP:PRIMARY: :In addition to stalking, the blocking admin also stated [9] I was being indeffed for creating an article that "relied on nothing but primary sources". Here is the version of the article in question as it existed when I created it: [10]. It references four (4) sources as follows: Reuters, the Chicago Business Journal, People Magazine, ABC News. Statement of facts - incorrect template selection: :The third, and final reason, I have been blocked was for inappropriate use of an edit warring notice, here: [11]. At the time this template was placed on the user's page, they had made two reverts in the article, not three as required for use of this template.

---

Reasons for unblock
Reason for unblock - violation of WP:HARASSMENT :As the harassment charge is based on two edits I made in areas Justeditingtoday was editing I will apologize for each of my harassing edits separately: :*First edit: Seeing that Wisconsin International Law Journal had been deleted as a source from social model of disability [12], I should have recognized any intervention by me to restore it would violate WP:HARASSMENT and instead notified an admin or third-party of any concerns I had instead of taking action myself. I apologize. :*Second edit: I questioned the veracity of Justeditingtoday's removal of dozens of legal journals as sources from WP articles (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp). My comment was rudely and unnecessarily biting (specifically I characterized these removals as "highly aberrant, disruptive edits") and I should have given him GF benefit of the doubt as to the reason he was conducting these large removals. I apologize. :In my further defense, I plead that the nature of the harassment in which I engaged - involving only two edits in a single topic area over a period of 13 minutes - was of a quantity significantly less than that for which other editors have been given warnings, IBANS, or 30-day blocks in the past. Reason for unblock - violation of WP:PRIMARY :I agree to acknowledge, without reservation, that Reuters, the Chicago Business Journal, People Magazine, and ABC News are all WP:PRIMARY sources. Reason for unblock - incorrect template selection: :I made an error in counting the number of reverts in question, counting an initial edit by Justeditingtoday as one of three everts. I wrongly used the 3RR template. This was entirely my fault, I should have taken greater care. Again, I accept full responsibility and apologize.

---

Miscellany
:It has been noted that, per my block log, I display "vindictiveness to editors you disagree [with]". It is true that, during my six years on WP, I have been blocked on two occasions, most recently for 60 hours a year ago for 3RR. :The question of "vindictiveness" relates, I think, to the other occasion three years ago. In that case, in a moment of passion, I made several disparaging comments about a new editor and was given a 48-hour block which was extended to indef after I failed to reply to several questions directed toward me, and only pending my response. Since that time three years ago, this now-veteran editor has accumulated 7 blocks ([13]) for disruptive editing, edit warring, and 3RR. This does not excuse the disparaging comments I made, it only - I believe - mitigates the current case by demonstrating that the editor three years ago cited as evidence of my pattern on viciousness was not a "clean hands" editor I simply flew off the handle at; that I am not a fundamentally evil, malicious, or vindictive creature who skulks about, plotting to harass others; and that, while blocks in that case were totally justified, they should be viewed as a separate and compact incident, not as part of a pattern of behavior. :When Worm that Turned (I am not pinging him so as to avoid charges of canvassing) pulled the indef he observed that the 48 hour had been upgraded to indef due to my delay and lack of contrition in replying to inquiries [14].("if you'd been upfront and clear long ago, you'd have been unblocked long ago". To say that this three year old indef has been "reimposed" in this case, therefore I believe, seriously distorts the character of that incident three years ago.)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Now a CU block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 29 April 2017 (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.

• Since I issued both the blocks you mention under "Miscellany" above, BlueSalix — your first two blocks — I'll just say here that my indef had nothing to do with any 'refusal to issue an apology' on your part. I've never demanded apologies on Wikipedia, and never will, as forced apologies are demeaning to both the apologizer and the apologizee. Nor was it about you making "disparaging comments". My best AGF interpretation of your description above is that you don't remember it right, and haven't seen my block rationale in the log recently. The block was actually about your statement that you had received an abusive e-mail from a user — a serious accusation which for several months you refused to either withdraw or substantiate. It was the same user whose block log you link to above, quite irrelevantly IMO. (Unless you mean it was OK for you to falsely claim off-wiki harassment from that user because you had a feeling they would go on to be blocked numerous times?) I wouldn't have brought up that old stuff if it wasn't for your self-serving statement above. It was a long time ago, and can be forgotten, I think. I certainly never thought you are "a fundamentally evil, malicious, or vindictive creature who skulks about, plotting to harass others". Not at all. You're not unique in not liking to admit mistakes. (You're casting a bit of a self-flattering haze over Worm That Turned's eventual unblock, too, BTW. Since you provided a link to it, anybody who's interested can easily look for themselves.) Bishonen | talk 18:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen - agreed. I think you may have fastposted me. Before your comment was logged I edited my statement to its current form ("was extended to indef after I failed to reply to several questions directed toward me" instead of "refusal to issue an apology"). As this was many years ago I hope you'll forgive me for any errors I make in reciting the specifics and accept my proactive edits in the spirit in which they're made. My only point in bringing this case up was to note it was an isolated incident from several years ago that should not be used as indicative of a pattern of behavior and I appreciate you saying you think it can be forgotten.

With respect to the current matter, all I can do is specifically identify each of my transgressions as an exhibition of my awareness of the problem, and then make an apology for each with the pledge I will not repeat that behavior. I, ultimately, hope that they are judged as less severe than meriting my permanent termination from WP. I have been on WP for six years and been blocked on two occasions, most recently for 60 hours. I feel applying an indef for a transgression of the current nature is a "zero to 55" block, but will respect whatever the ultimate outcome. BlueSalix (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueSalix. I disagreed strongly with you regarding the David Dao article. I think you made an error of judgement in both creating the article but also of course your reaction towards the deletion nomination. It is pretty clear the community as a whole disagreed with you. I'm not saying I disagree with the decision but I am sorry to see you blocked indefinitely because it's always a shame when we lose editors. I'm not an admin nor an expert but I think you need to take a step back, breathe and think about the way forward. Understandably, it seems very unlikely your block will be lifted at the moment. So I think it'd be best to disengage from battling about it now. But blocks are preventative, not punitive and indefinite does not mean forever. I don't know if you know about the standard offer but that seems like something to think about, as does mentorship with a more experienced editor. Your userpage shows you have done some valuable work here and you do have good goals which I share such as tackling unnecessary anglocentrism in articles. Anyway, good luck with whatever you decide. AusLondonder (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, AusLondonder. I appreciate you taking the time to let me know it's unlikely my block will be lifted. To clarify, however, the block was not principally related to the article you've mentioned, it was related to (a) my use of Reuters, the Chicago Business Journal, People Magazine, and ABC News which, per the blocking admin, are all WP:PRIMARY sources, (2) use of a 3RR template on a user talk page when a different template would have been warranted, (3) two edits I made questioning the removal of 37 peer-reviewed legal journals from across WP by aforementioned editor which questions I should not have raised in light of having templated said editor's talk page as it amounted to stalking. I believe permanent termination is a very significant reaction in this case but, of course, I have a perspective clouded by my party to the case and defer to the judgment of others.

I understand it appears there may be some after-the-fact concern with basing a block, partially, on #1 and a GF effort is underway to locate additional reasons that can added, post-facto, to explain the indef. It's, of course, difficult, for me or any editor, to mount a cogent defense against a continually evolving list of charges. It's also difficult for me, or any editor, to mount a cogent defense when those charges are things like "other aspects of [the] edit history" with no specificity as to what those other aspects are or diffs I can reference. That turns me a bit into Joseph K. So I do agree it may be best, until a "final-final" decision is constructed as to the reason for the block, to demure a defense. BlueSalix (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Delta Upsilon Ode2.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:"My Name is Sigma Chi, Sir".ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jonteemil (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sabrina Erdely.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Admiral William Brown has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability criteria for music at WP:MUSIC. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. What little information here that is referenced can be moved elsewhere.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Admiral William Brown is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral William Brown until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Epa101 (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chee.Toz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chee.Toz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Chee.Toz logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]