Fantastic Mr. Fox

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, ASmallMapleLeaf, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Syria at the 2024 Summer Olympics (January 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Syria at the 2024 Summer Olympics and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, ASmallMapleLeaf! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Your NAC at ANI

Regarding the discussion about Suriname, it's not a big deal and it's not like you're going to get in trouble or anything but even still, you shouldn't have closed that per WP:NACINV. City of Silver 04:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

An error on my part, thanks for drawing my attention to this for the future! ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Las Anod conflict (2023-present)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Las Anod conflict (2023-present), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

M.Bitton (talk) 22:13, 9 January

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Specifically: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Similar incivility by ASmallMapleLeaf.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. I'm sorry, but SMcCandlish's complaint, including their post script, is too damning and too suspect. And requires a substantive explanation, at the very least.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 17:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@El CIl get around to making the unblock request, but I feel there is no consensus for this, A user yesterday (who will remain unamed) thanked my edits responding to his things, which I assume is his support. I'm not sure can you check who thanked me, but if you can, please do.

Overall, I genuinely feel as if I have been tricked. I always wanted to edit Wikipedia, and came in with good faith, trying to explain why I did my actions in a genuine manner, without trying to hide it, because that's not nice. It appears by doing that, I dug a hole for myself, which is deeply upsetting for me. I could have given a long essay on why I disagreed with him, but I don't have time to do so.

It's also not going to mean much, but SMc was not pleasant to me, saying 'careful what you wish for' as if he somehow 'won' a debate, and I had been banished from Wikipedia to the depths of hell. Wikipedia is not about winning. I ask you review it as WP:BOOMERANG

Please, I encourage you to review your indef block of me. As for me, I'm going for a bike to reflect on this. If your reading this article, @EEng, and I caused offense, which I may have done, I'm very sorry. I was just trying to have a sense of humour, and it didn't land well. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

i also regret posting on ANI and agreed not to post there for the foreseeable future - see my edits. I really was going to try. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Your fan club as it currently stands only has one current member, User:A. B., and it was they that thanked you. So good, so good they thanked you twice  :) ——Serial 15:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, see WP:GRAVEDANCING. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@A. B.:, if you think that, between you and ASML, it was the latter I was calling, then too bad. ——Serial 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I figured it was directed at both of us. If it was just me, better to take it to my talk page, don’t you think? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to reply to oppose sanctions against you but didn't do it by fear of being the next one to get the WP:BOOMERANG. My apologies, I should've maybe tried it. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby It's really fine, honestly - if I could turn the dial back, to when I thought 'this could be poorly worded' while typing it out - I would never have made the statement in the first place. I believed my gained knowledge of the guidelines would be enough to hop on to ANI debates. And I misstepped off a cliff. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry. On the face of it, I don't believe that this was justified, and I'm sorry for any part I may have indirectly had in it by not responding when it was proposed (as well as generally finding it hard to word things, I had restricted myself from commenting any more in the AN/I thread for my own sake). I hope you enjoy your time away from Wikipedia. All the very best. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 22:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You, A smart kitten and Chaotic Enby are doing yourselves and the blocked user a disservice by, on the face of it, reflexively taking a side without dealing with the crux. To me, it comes across as an extension of the 'sides' in that lengthy debate/s I closed. This crux is about a user whose misconduct ordinarily would warrant a warning from me (or a short block from less lenient admins), if it wasn't for them having, as NYB notes: began opining in the EEng ANI discussion in [their] seventh edit (emphasis added). As mentioned, I find that too suspect, so SMcCandlish's notion of a tit-for-tat block made no sense to me. That is why I didn't put a clock on it. Yes, City of Silver only got a warning from me even though they acted more egregiously. But they didn't do it on their seventh edit. El_C 05:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. My apologies, I just left a support message and didn't think it was needed to explain my position further, as it wasn't a full reply detailing why I thought this block was too much. I could've explained my position further. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 09:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@El C: I respectfully but strongly disagree that either myself or Chaotic Enby have done a disservice to either ASmallMapleLeaf or ourselves by commenting as we did. I did not believe that ASML's sanction was justified, so I left a message of support for them on their talk page. I also disagree with the assertion that I reflexively [took] a side - I read through the comments in the AN/I thread as they were coming in, including the ones that lead to ASML's block. I disagree with the block because I believe it was unjustified based on the facts - I did not automatically decide for myself that this block was unjustified simply because ASML was on the same 'side' as me. As with Chaotic Enby, I did not believe it necessary to explain my position any further on this talk page (after all, it was a message of support to the editor who had been blocked, not an attempt to formally challenge the block). Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A smart kitten, well, I'm letting you know that, to me, it comes across as factionalism. When neither one of you, even now, addresses the... let's call it 7th edit crux. So you believe [the block] was unjustified, but do not believe it necessary to explain [your] position any further? Meanwhile, I get Chaotic Enby's saying how they didn't !vote out of fear of being the next one to get the WP:BOOMERANG, as a what? A veiled accusation about myself being heavy-ended? Regardless of that, you two !voting to what end, if it's unsubstantive? Because if it's merely to re-state the tautology of I disagree with the block because I believe it was unjustified, with no additional reasoning attached — well, I find that falls short. Being unresponsive about the crux falls short. And this coming from (probably) the only one here who did block EEng. El_C 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@El C: The comment I left here was addressed to ASmallMapleLeaf. I did not believe it was necessary as a prerequisite to leaving them a message of support to explain to them why I believe their block was unjustified. I therefore did not believe it necessary to explain my position any further on this talk page.

In addition, my message here was not intended as a !vote in any sort of debate; but rather just as a personal message of support (which is the only end to which I left the message). If the appropriateness of this block is debated, it will be done at the appropriate review forum, not ASML’s user talk page. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

My apology, the BOOMERANG comment wasn't aimed at you, but more at myself by fear of messing up in my comments, I didn't want to bring more heat on ANI which I know can already be a pretty stressful place for me to argue on. Again, this wasn't a !vote or any comment aimed at debating the consensus of the block, just expressing my personal opinion about it, thus why I didn't feel a reasoning was needed. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal opinion on the basis of what, though, Chaotic Enby? But sure, apology accepted, that's fine. Likewise, though, with A smart kitten's personal message of support that also deems it a poor block due to... reasons. So I hope you, both of you, are able to see it from my perspective. El_C 13:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, I didn't picture it as a debate or !vote, so, as the discussion was closed already and the block review left for admin attention, I don't think debating or justifying my personal opinion matters as I don't have anything to weigh in, I just wanted to leave a support message.
If a justification is needed, it is that, for a first infraction, I don't see an indef block as a good thing in general, especially for a newcomer. In this case, a warning, or at most a temp block (or temp ANI topic ban) would've been more constructive in avoiding further drama while keeping a potentially helpful new editor around in other topics. Either way, I don't think it matters as this is not a !vote, and the block appeal is left for further review.
I am able to understand your perspective, especially how some of my previous messages could've been misinterpreted, and I hope it is the case the other way around too! Happy editing, ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 14:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• To be honest, I wasn't following the original clusterfuck in detail (having actual things to do IRL), but I will say that a bit of attempted sarcasm, even if it falls short, is much less uncivil than the behavior of the various people who made blatantly false statements about me and my history (block record, ANI threads). I'm referring only to your original post; I haven't seen any later posts by you. If indeed you're really here to help build the encyclopedia, make an appropriate unblock request and put the whole thing behind you. EEng 18:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Your unblock request will be reviewed by a different admin, ASmallMapleLeaf. But, I'm sorry to say, nothing you state above convinces me to lift the block. Which concerns a user with less than 100 edits who is saying and doing all these questionable things (SMcCandlish's note). Also, I also do not need consensus for blocking you, as it is a regular admin action, not a WP:CBAN or anything else that would require community consensus. El_C 18:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

ASmallMapleLeaf, "be careful what you wish for" simply means that if you defiantly tell someone to take you to ANI instead of trying to work it out in user talk, they will probably do so. Just for the record, I was not seeking an indef, but the same sort of short-term block EEng already received and which is likely for City of Silver for the same kind of reason [update: CoS got a warning not a block]. I don't go for indef unless someone is clearly a vandal, noxious PoV pusher, spammer, or other person here to abuse the site for unencyclopedic purposes. It seems reasonably likely to me that you are a returning editor (which could mean anything from sockpuppeting after a ban, to doing a WP:CLEANSTART legitimately, or just being someone who forgot their old-time login credentials), but I myself was an infrequently editing anon for many months before I created an account. Even if you were a banned sock, I'm not sure I would care, and I don't have a reason to think that in particular. My own feeling was that you'd probably be a productive editor if you maintained the difference between criticizing content/behavior and commenting on the person, and perhaps stayed away from dramaboards where your input is extremely unlikely to be helpful (either because you are for real too new, or because you're an old axe-grinder – either way). As for "if I could turn the dial back ... I would never have made the statement": You had every opportunity to strike it or even just walk it back without striking it, or even remain silent and let the critique archive away on its own, but you dug in your heels and tried to defend it as CIVIL-compliant. This block was earned, even if I don't think it need be long-term (not that I get to decide anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be treating this block as me receiving a divine judgement. I only just started editting, and still need to refer to guidelines to make correct decisions, but that doesn't mean I haven't debated doing it for years. You cite my edit pattern, which involves improving topics where I can, respecting due process (I mean that undeniably outside of ANI), as 'interesting'. I suggest you check out the red links on the 2024 Olympics article under 'Paricipating Olympic committees'. My other edits were simply because I came across the article, and wanted to improve their flaws. But that doesn't matter. You won't need to write another essay about me being poorly behaved. I have decided to quit. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

At least for now. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand feeling sore after something like this, but it's not about judgmentalism. The WP:COMPETENCE page is probably worth an examination. I've never much cared for the name of that page, as it seems to suggest "you're incompetent" if anyone mentions it; but it actually has a lot of good advice in it. Same with WP:HOTHEADS and WP:HIGHMAINT. These are not policies, but they are "inside track" essays on how this place really operates. It takes some attitudinal/behavioral adjustments to productively work here. One of them is to listen to others when they think you've crossed a line, and just accept that for someone(s) you did did cross it, so try to avoid doing that in the future. While you needn't fawningly abase yourself about it, what not to do on the other extreme is get self-righteous and try to convince everyone that what you did/said was unimpeachable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@ASmallMapleLeaf: As noted above, you have the right to request an unblock, if you choose to and when you are ready to, and that request will be reviewed by one or more administrators who were not involved in the block. For what it is worth, my initial reaction to the block is that while some of your comments were intemperate, they did not reach the level of justifying a substantial block. However, one of the things that I think concerned the blocking administrator was that so new an editor almost immediately jumped into one of the most heated internal discussions that was taking place on Wikipedia at the time. More specifically, it appears that you began opining in the EEng ANI discussion in your seventh edit, on the same day you registered. This is not misconduct in itself—I myself began participating in internal dispute resolution here soon after I started editing, although not on the very first day—but as noted above, it does raise the question of how you fastened on that particular discussion so quickly. You might perhaps wish to address this subject in your unblock request. On a more positive note, you might also wish to address what types of contributions you hope to make in the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@El C I have noticed several times now about you mentioning I got involved with the EEng ANI on my 7th edit. Not sure if it matters too much, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut that's not correct. That was me at the current debate regarding @Koavf on the administrators noticeboard, not the EEng related ANI discussion..

was ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

RE: Not sure if it matters too much — it does not. But correction noted. And, as it happens, I also blocked Koavf/Justin (multiple times), but please do not ping him or other unrelated users to this talk page for no apparent reason. Use {{noping|username}} if you still wish to link them. Thank you. El_C 01:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

So did you miss me?
I just logged back into my account after 5 days and checked notifications. I was, to say the least, surprised. I never knew the was a board for [1] discussing bans
So now that I am back, Il elaborate on a few things
* 'So are you some sort of sockpuppet or returning editor?': Absolutely not. This is my first account. However, I have always being fascinated by this website. My first attempt at engaging on it was in fact all the way back in 2017, on an IP. I have picked up knowledge from since then, particularly from ANI (leading to the next big concern)
* 'Why are you jumping onto ANI debates so early?': This is the most valid point. I see ANI as a good way to speed up learning of guidelines, seeing them put into practice. Consequently, I decided to join in some debates after I made this account, because I said to myself 'why not? I may as well while I'm here'.
* 'Why do you edit... what you edit? Seems sus NGL': Well.... I specialise in things relating to international organisations, such as the Olympics, and War Studies. My early edits were to fill in red links at 2024 Summer Olympics, not because I wanted to achieve the of 'most sus editor' award at the Wikipedia Awards 2024. My further edits on other pages, like Las Anod, were because I stumbled upon them and decided to improve them. It's not a secret most conflict is controversial in some regard.
Any other questions ask away, il respond if and when I can. Thank you and adios. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocking with guidance, per my comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, to the people who have brought it upon and encouraged me to return, thank you. If it wasn't for your support, I would have quit any aspirations of editing this website, permanently. I do think a few things could be learned here regarding moderating new users in future. We all make poor decisions, me included, from time to time. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Sorry for disturbing you again, what does 'dna' mean? ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Abbreviation for the decline iIwas going to use before I saw this whole thing is out of my league. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I am reviewing the unblock request and invite El C as the blocking admin to comment on the request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am unable to follow up on this (or anything) for the time being, so I leave this entirely with you to decide on as you see fit. Witn no additional comment from me at this time. El_C 18:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: My impression trying to sift all of this is that we can unblock. But there might be conditions and restrictions needed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'm waiting a few more hours before addressing this, in case there are any further comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I trust Newyorkbrad's judgement and I just wanted to leave a quick point, if you are unblocked: You said you learned from reading ANI, my suggestion would be to not do that. When you can get into other areas (such as content creation or backlogs to work through), don't touch ANI. ANI is almost like a place where making bad faith arguments are actually allowed, where some people unleash their worst self. It is not a good place at all to learn about what is expected of a Wikipedian. I hope that you understand the concern and if you were to be unblocked and continue to display the same haste before this block to ANI or other noticeboards, I would be disappointed. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a WP:TBAN on the Cess Pit. What 0xDEADBEEF said. I only go there once in a while because as an admin, I must sometimes. But never willingly. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think an ANI topic ban would be a good idea as well. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest adding two exceptions to such a topic ban: 1) They may comment at an ANI thread in which they are involved (i.e., required to be notified of) and 2) any ANI threads they may start. This allows them to both present a defense, if brought to ANI by another, and bring legitimate grievances to the attention of the community. (With the understanding that the WP:BOOMERANG will handle any frivolous reports.) Does that sound reasonable? EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If the user is to be unblocked, a decision I don't necessarily agree with, I too favor an ANI topic ban, and I agree that the first exception is a good one, but I don't see the need for a second exception. I don't think this user has sufficient judgment to know which greivances are "legitimate" and which are not. In addition, I think the same ban should be imposed at WP:AN. As for the other administrative noticeboards, at this point a ban would be premature.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. There still should be some mechanism whereby Maple can report issues. For instance, if a user harasses them, there should be some recourse. If they can neither post to ANI (or AN, agreed) except in their own defense, nor discuss ANI to request someone else to report a problem, what would the appropriate response be? If the second exception is discarded, the only thing I'm aware of is to ask an administrator directly. If that's acceptable, then I agree, the second exception can be dropped. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that ASmallMapleLeaf needs a mechanism to report issues. However, I'm not sure that there's a need to prevent them from starting a thread at AN(I), should they feel they have to. As far as I'm aware, ASML hasn't started any threads themself, so I don't see how such a restriction would be preventative and/or necessary when there isn't any evidence that their judgement on appropriate grievances to bring to AN/I is an issue. (If the community believes in the future that it is an issue, though, such a restriction can always be applied later on.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 15:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This sounds pretty reasonable, agree that an ANI topic ban makes sense but the first exception seems pretty necessary. Honestly, the topic ban isn't even just for the community, but also for the editor's well-being and better learning experience in my opinion, given that the WP:DRAMABOARD is just not a very WP:HAPPYPLACE. (And that's coming from someone who spends much more time there than I should, and should also probably slow down a bit) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck's idea would be the best course of action here, in my opinion. I do think think my participation at ANI was somewhat unnecessary (and also time consuming on my end), as well as letting me know good faith rarely applies there, as stated by 0xDeadbeef. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: There was a lot of focus about me editting ANI on my 7th edit, leading to me being discussed as a potential WP:PROJSOCK. Currently, however, there is no guidelines restricting how newer users can engage at ANI, even if they are not involved (as in my case). To prevent this scenario repeating in future, perhaps there should be one that, for example, restricts editors with under 500 edits to only participating in threads in which they have been involved or asked to speak on. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Not "editing ANI", but "voting to block someone." Levivich (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I proposed it as an unblock condition; I think you just firmed up my rationale. I think we have an emerging WP:CONSENSUS here in favor. Up to whoever evaluates Time will tell. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I have reviewed the unblock request, the discussion above, and the longer discussion at XRV. I understand the arguments for the initial block: in brief, either ASmallMapleLeaf was indeed a brand-new user, in which case it is odd to begin an editing career by supporting bans on established editors; or he or she was not a new user, in which case the multiple-account rules come into play. I likewise understand the arguments against the initial block, principally that there are no restrictions on what discussions new users may participate in, that no specific rule or policy was violated, and that we should not block merely on suspicion that someone might be a returning user. Opinions in the XRV discussion are divided, and I don't need to decide the merits of the original block here.

Now we have the unblock request, in which ASmallMapleLeaf asserts that this is his or her first account (except for some IP editing). While some people may remain skeptical, as a matter of AGF I will accept that statement. ASmallMapleLeaf has also provided some explanation as to why he or she started editing ANI, and commenting in block/ban discussions, so soon in his or her wiki-career. ASmallMapleLeaf has acknowledged this as the most valid point made against him or her in the discussion, and has even proposed that new editors be barred from ANI to prevent this type of situation from happening in the future. I believe this reflects that ASmallMapleLeaf now understands what seems to have gone wrong here, making future issues less likely to recur.

(To be clear, there are no restrictions on what types of discussions new editors may participate in, and I don't believe it's necessary to create any. This remains a matter better suited to the application of common sense than to yet another in our always-increasing set of rules and policies. It's well known that I myself gravitated to the "back-office" pages of the project relatively early in my tenure—but not this early.)

After consideration, I am unblocking, but without criticism of the original block. Because ASmallMapleLeaf seems to understand the concerns about his or her editing before the block, I do not believe a formal restriction on his or her participating in ANI or similar pages is necessary, or that it would be productive to spend time formulating the details of such a restriction. However, I counsel ASmallMapleLeaf to bear the input he or she has received here, as well as in the XRV discussion, in mind in his or her future editing, especially in the upcoming weeks. If problems recur, we can discuss adding a formal restriction at that time, but I trust that they will not.

I wish you good luck in becoming a valued contributor, perhaps starting primarily in article-space and then, if you wish, in other aspects of the project. If there are any questions, please let me know. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Well put. Thank you. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Chaotic Enby has given you a salamander! Salamanders promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your salamander must be fed daily and will be your faithful companion for life! You can brighten someone's day by giving them a WikiCritter on their talk page with a friendly message, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To give a salamander: {{salamander|message=Your message here. ~~~~}}

Welcome back on Wikipedia, happy to have you here! I warm-heartedly invite you to contribute to the WikiProjects of your choice (which are often much less drama-intensive than ANI except for a few sports ones), and feel free to ask on my talk page (or at the 100% drama-free Teahouse) if you have any more questions!

ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Palestine at the 2024 Summer Olympics (January 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Palestine at the 2024 Summer Olympics and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Fantastic_Mr._Fox reported by User:Austronesier (Result: ). Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

I apologise in advance for the big wall of text. Feel free to ask for questions. And please, as suggested in my request - uninvolved admin only, please. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm replying as we were on good terms previously and your talk page happened to stay on my watchlist. First, Bbb23 is not a WP:CheckUser, and thus very likely hasn't been checking your IP. Second, being WP:INVOLVED is about the dispute itself (in this case, having participated in the edit war), and discussing administrative action isn't considered involvement as far as I know. Finally, I advise you to use less vehement language when requesting an unblock request — even if you do not trust the admin at all, it is best to calmly ask for another admin to review the situation, and casting aspersions is rarely helpful.
I'll refrain from commenting on the merits of the block itself or on Bbb23's previous behavior, and leave that for an actual admin reviewing the block request, as I am just here to give you hopefully helpful advice on the situation. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. I'm more against the block not because it is to do with edit warring - as stated, i potentially (A piece of advice on how to deal with future blatent refusals to communicate is welcome) made an error trying to revert the (Presumably new, maybe something else) editors on that page. I much prefer something far more constructive, for example, what you have written in regards to this unblock request, if I make such errors, because I can give reasons why or make adjustments accordingly. The issue here is Bbb23, unlike yourself, has not ever given me advice, and has instead just punished me here in response to me stating he was WP:HOUNDING me, based off him having a commentary on anything I do considered out of the norm on Wikipedia. His block notice of what I understand as 'Blocked because he didn't break down and confess like a 5 year old , and I will probably block him again. Also said I did something, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT' screams bad faith and i'm not working on a encyclopedia, not matter how much I want to, with a hawk ready to pounce at a moments notice on me. I am perfectly fine with literally any other admin reviewing this, but I am tempted today to ask for interaction ban between me an Bbb23. I don't dislike him, but he seems to dislike me, and he has a hammer. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely hope you can have another administrator review the situation. Again, whether you are in the right or not regarding this situation, I suggest you remember Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough, and a factual statement of what happened and why you believe it to be out of bounds will always be better than flowery metaphors.
From what I understand, Bbb23 seems to have gone for a block because of your insistence that [your] edit-warring was exempt under 3RRNO. That doesn't seem like bad faith, but more like a block because of your misunderstanding of what was allowed by policy, with the block (rather than warning) being because you still believed you were allowed to do it. Now that you have a better understanding (as you stated above) of when the policy properly applies, I think the block has done what it needed to do, and an unblock would be welcome in my opinion. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You should stop repeating the aspersions against Bbb23 just for using admistrative tools (≠ "hammer") they have been entrusted with by the community. Most other admins would have done exactly the same (if fact we expect them to do so when facing blatant policy violations), and I doubt that the community will consider this 24h-block a bad block. But feel free to take your issues to WP:AARV when the block expires (unless another admin might consider to indef you in the meantime for casting aspersions against an uninvolved admin just because they happened to be the one to do what is appropriate). –Austronesier (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You have restored[2] the version by Rhemaiza that you have reverted countless times less than 48h ago with unstoppable verve. Why? I have a guess, but I'd prefer to hear from you. –Austronesier (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I was only reverting to previous version because I wanted to understand his sourcing he gave it. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Rasa Sayang. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

So what kind of edit warring? Are you assuming I reverted to his edit for bad faith reasons? I wanted to hear his sourcing, and he gave one in his last edit. I'm not editing this site for a while, if on this account again, if your wondering what I want to do. Bbb23 care to explain? I'm tired. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I reverted to his (the other editor in the dispute) edit since he gave an explanation, and I won't be editing for a long time, so I decided to diffuse the dispute by myself, since only I opposed it. Please unblock so I can rest in peace. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You're correct. I mistakenly thought you had restored the article to your version. My apologies. Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)