User talk:Willbb234

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

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).

Willbb234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I recently made a nasty comment and I would like to apologise for said comment and for the distress it caused. I would also like to apologise to those that had to read the comment. I promise that this won't happen again. In my nearly five years of editing this is what I believe to be the first personal attack I have made, and so it is certainly not like me to make such a comment, and I will learn and change from this experience and block. Regards, Willbb234 18:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This appeal falls well short of convincing me that you understand how serious your comment was: sexual harassment which you characterized as "just a joke" ([1]) and then repeated the comment as you invited a reviewing administrator to "stop taking stuff so literally" ([2]). I'm going to post some external resources below about the harms of passing off sexual harassment as "just a joke", which I suggest you read and deeply reflect on before you consider another unblock appeal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:08, 1 February 2024 (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.

Do you understand that when all we have is text on a screen, we have little option but to take you literally? The other point I would ask you to be aware of is that Wikipedia is a global community and what you might find humorous won't necessarily be found so by others- and that not everyone wants to read such comments. This is a public space, not a bar. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, here are some resources on online harassment which you may be interested in reviewing.

• The Inclusion Solution, "Unpacking the Conversations that Matter: “It’s just a joke! Why are you so upset?”"
• Inside Higher Ed, "The Just Joking Defense"
• Medium, "Don’t Take It So Seriously, It’s Just A Joke — Or Is It?"
• The Conversation, "‘It’s just a joke’: the subtle effects of offensive language"
• The Guardian, "Can't you take a joke, love? Why the 'banter' isn't funny any more"
• risk(within)reason, "“It was just a joke!” How bullies blame their victims"

And here are some lesson guides which, despite being designed to introduce these concepts to children, you may nonetheless find informative:

• Childnet, "Just a joke?"
• MediaSmarts.ca, "Just a joke? Helping youth respond to casual prejudice"

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Willbb234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Along with the things I said in my previous unblock request, I would also like to acknowledge the seriousness of my comment and the fact that I have read through the resources given and have given thought to what they have said. Passing off sexual harassment as a joke is completely inappropriate. I hope that we can move on. Willbb234 17:47, 27 February 2024 (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=Along with the things I said in my previous unblock request, I would also like to acknowledge the seriousness of my comment and the fact that I have read through the resources given and have given thought to what they have said. Passing off sexual harassment as a joke is completely inappropriate. I hope that we can move on. [[User:Willbb234|Willbb234]] 17:47, 27 February 2024 (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=Along with the things I said in my previous unblock request, I would also like to acknowledge the seriousness of my comment and the fact that I have read through the resources given and have given thought to what they have said. Passing off sexual harassment as a joke is completely inappropriate. I hope that we can move on. [[User:Willbb234|Willbb234]] 17:47, 27 February 2024 (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=Along with the things I said in my previous unblock request, I would also like to acknowledge the seriousness of my comment and the fact that I have read through the resources given and have given thought to what they have said. Passing off sexual harassment as a joke is completely inappropriate. I hope that we can move on. [[User:Willbb234|Willbb234]] 17:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• As one of our mandatory ritual formalities, Willbb234, I'm required to notify you that I have mentioned you in a thread at WP:AN, titled Unblock request: Willbb234. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion[edit]

Per above, I have invited editors who would normally comment on an unblock request at WP:AN to comment here instead. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While they were blocked due to the violation of WP:NPA, I think the bigger question that still stays is whether their general repeated history of edit warring is going to change as it was not addressed in any of the unblock requests.

It appears there is a year(s) long history of this and even a WP:1RR restriction that was placed on them in May 2023 with a possible appeal after 6 months, which would have been October, but they were blocked for WP:3RR in October 2023 when that 1-RR restriction would have been in place still, it doesn't look like it was ever appealed, so the subsequent edit warring in September 2023, another in October 2023 (for which they were blocked after I submitted it at the 3RR noticeboard), as well as in December 2023 just show a long history of disregard for these rules, so while they have at times been editing constructively, they also cause a lot of effort arguing and WP:WIKILAWYERING if content is against their views with users and in each of these edit wars and the side discussions that have been brought to ANI such as this one from October.

So while they apologized for the personal attack, I don't see how their behavior of edit warring is going to cease, given that they violated the 1-RR multiple times after May (and editors, myself including) weren't even aware that they are under a sitewide 1-RR restriction. So this general disruptive behavior just feels like it runs afoul of WP:NOTHERE and I think that would have to be addressed prior to an unblock. Raladic (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh does an adult really need sanctions to know that comment was inappropriate to say here? I wouldn't unblock but like my fellow admins above, I wouldn't oppose someone else doing it. Like Raladic, while the comment was gross, I feel like edit warring is the more long term issue. Star Mississippi 02:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this block has served its purpose and they've got the message, and see no reason not to unblock. It's wrong to oppose unblock on the basis of issues that are completely unrelated to the original reasons for the block, like the edit warring issues here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  However it wasn’t unrelated - they actually violated the site wide 1-RR against them here in the in incident with @Fruitloop11 - [3] - this was their second revert in this and only for the fact that no one was aware of them being under a 1-RR restriction did Fruitloop11 only issue a warning after that second revert, warning them of our general 3-RR rule and then subsequently being insulted by Willbb234.

  So only for the fact that the block for violating NPA pre-empted the block for violating the 1RR they violated, but given that they violated the 1-RR to begin with repeatedly, since they also did so in October, I’d argue it very much is relevant. Raladic (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's unrelated in the sense that had they not done other things they would not have been blocked solely due to edit warring but if they had not edit warred they still would have been blocked for the other things. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news, obituary and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here. Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.