Open main menu

User talk:Darkfrog24

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta!Edit

Hello, Darkfrog24. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for starting the RFC at Requests for comment/Designated space for editors to give and seek advice about topic bans and other sanctions. Has anyone notified Arbcom or the Foundation? The pinging system now works across multiple wikis. —Neotarf (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned to a member of ArbCom that I was helping with the proposal as part of a conversation that we were having about something else a few weeks ago.
The best place to post alerts would probably be Village Pump Policy or Village Pump Proposals. If for no other reason than the degree to which I've seen enforcing admins complain about being too busy to answer questions, and there are other reasons, it might be best to let ArbCom and AE regulars come in at their own pace than to think that we're demanding their full and immediate attention. TBH I'd also like to see this get some more community support. Even the Supreme Court reads the newspapers, as they say. If it's clear that this is something the community wants, then even if the arbitrators don't approve the noticeboard, they're less likely to think it unreasonable that they were asked.
Just in case it's not clear, my view is that for this board to work on Wikipedia, it would require ArbCom's approval. Most noticeboards wouldn't, but this one has to be a topic-ban-free zone. Meta-Wiki is outside their jurisdiction, but that's pretty close to a technicality, so it would still be a huge plus to have it here as well. It's only a question of when and how to bring it to them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
All you would need is for a couple of them to show up and comment, like they do on the WP criticism sites. Might put Mr. 2001 out of business though. Hmm, maybe the Foundation would help...? —Neotarf (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't follow you. "Mr. 2001"? And what do the arbitrators do on WP criticism sites? I also have to wonder if you mean "all you would need to sink the proposal" or "all you would need to get approval" but both are true, so it's a bit moot. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion of such sites is often discouraged on Wikimedia projects because of their habit of doxing Wikimedians, see WP:BADSITES, but "Mr. 2001" should work as a search term on Jimbo's talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Appeal textEdit

Do please ask questions. We've had trouble communicating and I think that would help. There have been zero attempts at block evasion and I have continued making contributions to other parts of Project Wiki.

Since you're so busy, I've written a summary and if you want to decide based on this alone, fine with me: 1) I ask you to lift the block because the reasons for it no longer apply and because of my good and heavily collaborative work at the Spanish Wikipedia and Wikinews. 2) I ask you to lift the topic ban because my work at Wikinews shows that it continues to be unnecessary.

At Wikinews, I received the team barnstar and about thirty articles made the main page. One reviewer said they were "very glad to have [me] about." I was also thanked by a reader. Apparently I "bring real value" to the project. Thanked My contributions to discussions there have been appreciated [1]. Other users have asked for my help by name. Discussions of style issues, including what would fall under ENGVAR on Wikipedia, proceeded without incident.[2][3] My request for reviewer status at Wikinews has received two supports, one plan-to-support, no opposes.

At the Spanish Wikipedia, I was nominated for autoverificado status for translating the Euryarchaeota subcategory.

To be clear, this is a bock appeal, but you do have both the authority to lift both block and topic ban right now and you have additional grounds to do so that did not exist last November. My work at Wikinews demonstrates that it is not necessary, and removing it would simplify things considerably.

Opabinia once told me that it's important to figure out why I was blocked. After talking with Robert and Euryalus, it seems that reasonable adults can come to different conclusions on this. You'll be pleased to know I've addressed all of them.

Some of the facts are clear: The then-enforcing admin of the topic ban issued last January filed to have me blocked in response to a post in which I presented some evidence proving that I hadn't done some of the things of which I'd been accused. I believed I was allowed to do this under WP:BANEX's "ask the enforcing admin to reconsider." Also, after the fact, Opabinia Regalis suggested that I do this, so I'm pretty sure that just showing the enforcing admin exonerating evidence wasn't the problem.

  1. Rob thinks that this admin just didn't know I was using one of WP:BANEX's appeal options and that if I'd been more clear about that and expressly asked permission in advance, there wouldn't have been an issue.
  2. The block notice says I was blocked because of "constant relitigation of the topic ban." This is not accurate as far as facts are concerned. That post to the enforcing admin was the first time I'd attempted to get the topic ban changed. Once isn't constantly.
  3. I think I was blocked for volume. The AE admins were tired of hearing me talk about the topic ban and ask questions about how it worked. Even though no one post between them and me broke any rules, collectively they tired them out. "Constant relitigation" works if it isn't meant to be factual but rather a description of how they felt or the impression they got. This makes sense if we focus on Wikipedia as a community and not a legal system.

If it was #1, as of this past February 1, I became eligible to file a very clearly labeled formal appeal at AE whenever I feel ready to do so, and plan to cite which policy I am following very strictly should any similar situation arise in the future. Even if you don't lift the topic ban today, the reason for the block no longer applies. For #3, I've spent months reading AE and ARCA cases to internalize some of the unwritten rules and wouldn't need to ask so many questions. Examples upon request.

So if you lift the block but not the ban, what would I do? 1) The same stuff I was doing before I was blocked: Game of Thrones, Hadesarchaea, RSN, 3O, NPOVN, WP:COPYEDIT. 2) The English versions of the Euryarchaeota subcategory could use an update. 3) More Wikinews. 4) This WikiTribune thing intrigues me.

Because there are some places on Wikipedia where silence is interpreted as confession, I must end with this: The original accusations against me are not true. This is relevant here because it means you can trust me to continue never gaslighting anyone, continue never ignoring sources, continue never posting fake claims, continue never calling anyone names, and so on. There's no bad habit to break there. If you want to know what I do plan to do differently at WT:MOS, ask.

With thanks to RobertInventor and others for helping with the review of this draft. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I got this message from Gorilla Warfare today:

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your appeal, and our decision is to decline your appeal at this time. We are concerned both that you do not seem to understand or accept why you were blocked in the first place, and that as a result of this, you do not offer any indication of how you will conduct yourself differently so as to avoid further conflicts.

In six months, you may re-appeal, but we advise that at that time you explain what how you would behave if unblocked, what you have learned from being blocked, and that you have not edited through sockpuppets in the previous six months. As we have gone back and forth quite extensively on this appeal with both you and Robert, we will not be considering appeals lodged within the next six months; as such, you may not receive responses to any emails sent to the Arbitration Committee within that time period. Please also note that we will only consider appeals of your account from you; appeals and arguments on your behalf from others will not be considered.

When contacting this committee or responding to any of our messages, please ensure that is in the "to" or "cc" field of any reply you make to this message. Messages sent only to me or another individual arbitrator may not be read.

For the Arbitration Committee,

GorillaWarfare [Real name removed]

And here is my response:

you do not seem to understand or accept why you were blocked in the first place

If this is the problem, the solution is extremely simple: Tell me.

I have to ask at this point: Do you know why I was blocked? Are you not telling me because you don't know?

I was assuming good faith by not mentioning this but is it "SMcCandlish is a special editor and you were blocked as a favor to him"? Is it "Whenever a Wikipedia editor is punished for anything, they must act as if they did it even if they did not; they must act as if AE admins never make mistakes"?

have not edited through sockpuppets in the previous six months

That is what I mean by "zero attempts at block evasion." I have never used sock puppets in my life. I also haven't edited Wikipedia while not logged in.

Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)



I find myself a bit alarmed by something you said in your message to me: "Abuse of on-wiki email function." I am afraid I don't know what you're talking about. I click the "email this user" link to talk to people sometimes, but I'm not aware that this is against any rules. Wikipedia's ArbCom has said on many occasions that their authority applies solely to the English Wikipedia. Is this about my conversation with en:5 albert square? Would you please direct me to the Wikipedia page listing the policy covering use of the "email this user" function? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Darkfrog24".