User talk:MaranoFan/Archive 2

4th GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, GA Cup competitors! December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December. This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points. We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules. In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that her block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #17419 was submitted on Jan 29, 2017 15:44:42. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3. In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - The Final

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion. In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog. In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access restored

I've restored talk page access, so you can respond to questions/comments raised at the block appeal discussion at WP:AN. You can reply here, and anyone watching this page can transfer the response over. If anything remotely homophobic or insulting is posted, I'll revoke access again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Deflecting some of the talking points being used to keep me blocked

• I might have a "history of feuding" with people (who feuded with me equally), but they were never blocked at all and are editing for two years with no problem. The block I got was for sockpuppetry, not for this. The standard offer exists for a reason and the 2 years that have gone by since the respective feud has made me get over it. None of the accounts I violated my ban with interacted with those users either and I don't plan on doing it now
• Yes, I had sockpuppets. I did go six months with no sock activity to demonstrate how I'm a changed person. Again, the standard offer exists for a reason.
• Excessively reverting wasn't the reason I got blocked, and I don't have a problem with that in general. No idea why a user is saying I need a 1RR restriction.
• I'm not gonna interact with any of the users I "feuded" with, again I didn't with any sock accounts and I won't with this one. I'm over it.

I was responsible for at least 3 good articles, 3 successful DYK submissions and had more GAs in the work. Its unfair to deny me a second chance when its been two years since the alleged feuds. (I simply just want to return and work on Meghan Trainor articles, I do not come to Wikipedia to make friends or enemies).--MaranoFan (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Please copy this to AN  Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

---

@GenuineArt: I apologize for not being able to word myself correctly in my previous response. I want to use less buzz words like "swear" and "promise" and demonstrate my changed conduct with my behaviour. Being off Wikipedia for so long made me forget how these requests should be worded. I just want people to know what a tremendous loss keeping me blocked is doing. I used the word "alleged" with regard to my feuds because they were being projected as a one-sided thing by my blocking admin when the two users I had a feud with did malicious things to me like Want my good articles delisted, nominated articles I created for deletion etc. to provoke me. However, the time I spent blocked gave me enough time to realize how I contributed in the occurrence of those situations and how I can better avoid it in the future. I'm highly apologetic about the past and do not wish to continue on that same path. And when it comes to sockpuppetry (Which was the only reason provided when I was being blocked), It was actually a failed attempt at a legitimate account and the real sockpuppets came after a permanent block (It was highly disruptive on my part and I won't repeat it.) I just don't know what else to say anymore, I'm responsible for almost every good article listed here as well as the creation of the Wikiproject. Just please give me enough WP:ROPE to prove that I'm a changed person through my behaviour after being unblocked. I wanted to give you more insight into the situation, its totally your choice if you still want to vote to keep me blocked :/. Link to discussion--MaranoFan (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Copied to discussion.--5 albert square (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

---

'The following post is a reply to SNUGGUMS, ping his name and copy it under his comment at AN'

• I don't think me creating dupe accounts should be considered as being given second chances by Wikipedia. This is the first time a discussion is being had to get me unblocked in the last two years. Its really not a foreign concept that a 15 year old matures a lot when she turns 17. When I say i have changed and do not want to feud with anyone or make sock-puppets, I mean it and words are the only way I can demonstrate it now under this infinite block. Wikipedia has its own pages describing this situation in forms of WP:SO and WP:ROPE. Basically, you all should have good faith in me and please give me a final chance since I specifically held out hope for the standard offer in the last six months. Its my final hope of coming back to Wikipedia. You've reviewed countless good articles I worked on [1] [[2], You have an idea of my intentions. I was a little short-tempered two years ago and held things against users too fast, but now I plan on taking things people say at face value and actually learning from them. Thats how you know it will be different this time. A whole wikiproject completely died when I was kicked out.--MaranoFan (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done--5 albert square (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

---

• @Softlavender: Thanks for summing up the situation in better words than I could. Its also worth knowing that it was a member of that same meatpuppet team who called my blocking admin's attention to my valid alt account as if it were a problem. Then didn't protest the subsequent block despite clearly being in knowledge of the fact that it wasn't a sockpuppet.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done--5 albert square (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Can you remove this last post from AN? My edit summary said this isn’t meant to be copied there. I want the editors who used to stalk me to go nameless so no one tags them there and brings them back to stalking me.—MaranoFan (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Although even better would be to not link to people you have feuded with here at all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblocked

MaranoFan, your account has been unblocked based on the AN discussion ([3]). You have proposed to voluntarily not interact with editors you have feuded with in the past, and promised to not repeat the excessive reverting in which you have been doing before. Hopefully you can follow through on both of these promises. You are also subjected to one-account restriction, which has been formally logged here ([4]). You are more than welcome to appeal this restriction in six months, which is the standard waiting time, although I do not recommend you to do so. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I hereby acknowledge I have read your conditions for the unblock and will not be violating them.--MaranoFan (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih, I think that you meant "appeal" rather than "repeal". Am I correct? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Yes, sorry. Typo corrected. Alex Shih (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Warning

I will re-block your account swiftly if you make another edit restoring your preferred version of articles without discussing them first on the talk page, or trying to justify reverting/interacting with these editors that you have feuded with. Stay clear of contentious topic areas, find different articles to edit, and please edit carefully. If you are being reverted by the same editors outside of these articles, then that will be dealt with separately. Right now please just focus on your own problematic editing behaviour. Alex Shih (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Gender in profile

Hi! I see you have {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/Female}} on your userpage. However, it looks like you've set your gender in your preferences to "male", which makes various user scripts (e.g. Navigation Popups) display a "male" indicator after your name. You may want to update your preferences to fix this. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Must be a mistake, I’ll fix that. Thanks. I definitely identify as a woman.—MaranoFan (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note that if some other admin wants to unblock based on acceptance of suitable conditions, that's fine by me. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I just hate the word "indefinitely" (I'm aware I do have the option to repeal the block). I think a month long block would be justified for me because I violated an IBAN I had forgotten officially existed. (which, if we're being fair, I'm not the only one who did this). I do not believe the contents I added to the articles were at all disruptive (I could've held off on reverting though which I'm apologetic for). I literally had a written plan to improve 10 articles, before the year ends, on my user page. Things would still be going smoothly if an editor who has an IBAN with me didn't revert me thrice. My block summary includes piling straight back into old fights, even though I'm not the one who started them this time around.

The two way interaction ban, (which we now know always existed), would have solved all the problems had it actually been followed through. But I realize I am partly to blame here. And I take responsibility. I'm sorry.--MaranoFan (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

And in all fairness it seems like most of this discussion [5] has a consensus in my favour, this closure does not align with what most of the admins said. I'm gonna wait and see what admins that followed that discussion have to say about this block, and especially the fact that I'm the only blocked one in a situation where two people violated an IBAN.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You are still not getting it. The block will not be lifted unless if you can recognise that by starting to mass restore your preferred version of articles in pages you have been involved contentiously before, using a rather bogus reason, was careless to the point of being disruptive. Winkelvi's reverts were not justified, but you are equally to blame here, and unfortunately the (re-)block was necessary on your part only because you don't seem to recognise that 1) you are the editor coming off previous indefinite block for disruption and socking that did damage to the project 2) being unblocked does not mean you can do whatever you want. Sorry if I come off as grumpy, because obviously I felt like I wasted my time here. But if you can address the concerns properly, I think it's not difficult to convince another administrator to unblock. Alex Shih (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih I do apologize for the reverts that were disruptive (I don't necessarily agree the content was disruptive but edit warring definitely is). Its hard not to assume bad faith from an editor you had a past feud with, and literally an indef IBAN too, who pops out to edit two articles they never edited in the last two years only to revert your edits even though they're supported by WP:BOLD. I even started talk page discussions which I thought were the appropriate thing to do, I, Another Believer and Galobtter seemed to agree my edits are useful and supported by the BOLD policy. I accidentally acted out and reverted the edits because I had worked hard on what I restored. I am deeply sorry. The ANI discussion had wide consensus for a two-way interaction ban to be put in place and hey, it turns out there is one. Both of us agreed to adhere to it from now. I think most admins who posted there would agree this indef ban is the most extra and unnecessary thing. Especially since I didn't actually vandalise said page, I only revamped it. It was useful. The edit I made to Better (Meghan Trainor song)" added 15 more references to it than before, some may even argue it failed the notability criteria before. Believe it or not, even if I can't word my edit summaries properly, the restored edits are much better versions of the article. With the IBAN now in force, I will strictly stick to music related articles and not trouble the user at all. Can I please have this block removed or at least shortened? I've realized that I am supposed to give at least 24 hours for something to be discussed on the respective talk page.-NØ 14:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get a reputation as "the one who always reverses Guy's blocks", but I read the ANI thread over breakfast, and thought I'd come back to it. I think MaranoFan didn't realise they were violating their interaction ban, and they apologised for doing so, plus Black Kite had said someone should close the thread with something like a last warning. And fundamentally, they are trying to write bits of the encyclopedia. So we should let them off on the understanding they now understand what the interaction ban is. However, I want the following to be understood:

1. You don't go anywhere near Winkelvi. Not now, not ever. (at least until the interaction ban is appealed)
2. If you see Winkelvi editing something on your watchlist, or an article you care about, find one of the other 5 million articles on the encyclopedia and work on that.
3. If you think Winkelvi is making an article worse, leave a note on the talk page and ping a friendly admin (eg: me) - I will look at it and try and break the logjam (or punt it to another editor who can help)
4. I agree that Winkelvi has been unnecessarily aggressive and should seriously back off before they get the same treatment. However, it is the admins' job to sort that out, not yours.
5. Don't do this again. Seriously, if you trip up on the interaction ban again, I'm not going to be able to entertain an unblock as easily.

So, confirm you understand all five points, and I will entertain an unblock. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I understand all these points and they are reasonable. I will never ever interact with Winkelvi again.--NØ 14:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have reduced the block to 24 hours. The community still needs time just to evaluate the situation a bit more thoroughly, and it gives other people a chance to comment on the block before you go back off editing at full speed. For what it's worth, I semi-regularly put up album articles to good article nominations, if you're up for reviewing one of those. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"I'm all about the block, 'bout the block, no talkpage...."

• I've unblocked your account pursuant to both the original discussion at AN/I, in which there was a clear consensus that you should not be blocked, as well as the block review discussion at WP:ANI#Unfair result. Apologies to any admins whose feel I'm stepping on their toes here, but there's no consensus for a block in the original discussion, or the subsequent subthread, which has now provided the community evaluation that Ritchie was looking for, and has reinforced the notion that a block is not the appropriate course of action here. I hope we can all move on without further incident from this point. (Swarm ♠ talk) 20:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Glad to see that this has been corrected. I thought about leaving a comment here about this "bad block", and make no mistake, it was a bad block, soon after it was enacted but I didn't have a good way of explaining myself and... I anticipated it would be futile. There was no consensus at AN/I to take any action, and an emerging consensus to close without action; so to take that and unilaterally turn it into an indef strikes me as antithetical to the entire purpose of having the discussion. Poor use of IAR. Thanks for the ping, btw, Swarm, but I was already asleep when you sent it. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I am thankful to Ritchie333, Swarm, Fish+Karate and Mr rnddude and any other admins for seeking reassessment of this block, which there was visibly no consensus for. Needless to say, I do not take your efforts for granted and I plan to keep the five-part promise I made to Ritchie. Here's to constructive work and many more good articles in the future!--NØ 01:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No (Meghan Trainor song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)