User talk:Modulus12/Archive 1

StressOverStrain, you are invited to the Co-op!

Hi there! StressOverStrain, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Darren Cross

Sorry about that. I added the publisher "Marvel Comics" to the references using the copy and paste method, but apparently must've neglected to including the closing arrow when copying, and that error repeated itself. Thanks for fixing it. Nightscream (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

History of Máriapócs from official source and site. This essential information is missing from the page

Why did you remove this essential information from the page on Máriapócs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.137.3 (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The cited web page was entirely copied word-for-word. This is more than likely a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. If it has a compatible license you can re-add it, but generally on Wikipedia we summarize the sources in our own words and properly cite them. StressOverStrain (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my unintended goof at Obama's presidency

While The Presidency of Barack Obama is well over the preferred limit under WP:LENGTH (something I feel since I've been involuntarily reverted to a dial-up connection for the past three years), I wasn't trying to trim it by that unnoticed and unexplained deletion.

When we feel enough grief at seeing our work reverted or changed by others for what we feel are poor reasons, I also think it's just as important to acknowledge when such an edit has corrected, improved or broadened one's own work.

And it's certainly better than unintentionally allowing some goof to sit around, misleading outside readers for years, simply because no other editor still notices or cares about an article.

—— Shakescene (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Modulus12. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Modulus12. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello M. Re: this edit. It is June rather than May. The category shows up as a red link if the month isn't correct. No worries as I got to fix the refs but I wanted to let you know for future reference. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: The template was originally added in May, so I was trying to have it sort into the correct month as if the template was correctly formatted back in May. But I see your point that it doesn't make sense to do that if there is no backlog and the category doesn't exist. Modulus12 (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That explains things. Yep they only sort into the current month when they get re-added. I know that is different for other maintenance categories so it can be confusing. Best regards and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 00:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are deleting — Read the newspaper artcle before delete or update

All stuff is supported with newspaper artcle.. Why are you deleting ?? Gewin007 07:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Read the newspaper artcle before delete or update Gewin007 07:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

utcursch please let him Gewin007 07:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Utcursch Gewin007 07:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Utcursch: Gewin007 07:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewingewin (talk • contribs) 07:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gewingewin: I believe the second message I left on your talk page made things clear. Wikipedia articles are not valid sources. I see you've re-added the content with other internet sources, which is fine by me. Also, I think WP:SIGLINK requires your signature to contain a link to your user or user talk pages, especially since Gewin007 isn't your actual username. And to ping User:Utcursch you need to link his user page or use a template like {{reply to|Utcursch}}. Modulus12 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 14, 2018

Many thanks for catching "the the" (ouch!) It may sound odd, but there are readers out there who actually read your language as "tag teams that are part of the Midnight Express", so I'd rather change it. Maybe, "tag teams, including The Midnight Express"? Or something else? - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dank: After staring at it for awhile I can't come up with anything better than your including version, so I'm fine with that. Especially doesn't hold much meaning after removing the "most famous" characterization anyway. Modulus12 (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Magnificat and Nunc dimittis in D

English is not my native language, perhaps I need help. Magnificat and Nunc dimittis in D - 2 pieces combined under one title, abbr. Mag&Nunc, but setting 2 canticles, and performed at different times during Evensong. It feels more like plural to me, and the singular in the article is for "a setting". Perhaps you can reword it in the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Hmmm, looking at the online sources, they seem to treat it as two things, which would make it plural, but the italicization of the Wikipedia article title would imply that it's a singular object. I don't really know enough about music to decide what it actually is. If you're trying to say that Wood made a choral setting called Magnificat and Nunc dimittis in D, then I think the article is fine the way it is. If you're trying to say that Wood made two separate things that are commonly grouped together, then the article should probably be called Magnificat and Nunc dimittis in D (or something similar) and treated as plural. Modulus12 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not as mach about music as about Anglican Evensong. It always has a Magnificat, rather at the beginning, and always a Nunc dimittis, rather at the end, with psalms in between. It became common practise for composers to set both kind of connected - the one in question has the same key for both (D major), and the conclusion of both, "Glory be to the Father", is identical for both. So it's one setting, like the movements of a symphony, but a little less so because other music will be performed in between. Therefore, for the DYK hook which should be brief and has no other context, I felt that two things connected by "and" sound more natural with a plural verb, even if they are strictly spealing one title. Ideas? - Feel free to check my articles (on my user page), I like your way with the language, and can surely learn. Today Inge Borkh, an expansion, a bit uneven for that reason alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Magnificat and Nunc dimittis in D (Wood). Singing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 10, 2018

I'm glad you're taking an interest, but the usage notes in modern dictionaries deprecate the practice of throwing out every restrictive "which". I get rid of them myself sometimes, but only if they're in one of the known-exception categories, or if I think I'll be able to justify doing it on the grounds of some possible ambiguity. If there's a nearby nonrestrictive "which", that's generally a good enough reason. Thoughts? Did I misunderstand? - Dank (push to talk) 20:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Revolution that followed reads slightly better to my (American) ears, but like you say, which isn't really wrong to use here. I'll try to be more judicious about swapping them in the future. Modulus12 (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK prep sets

Hi, I just got in trouble for editing one of your "added context" edits which added incorrect information, and my edit was blamed as well. You should not be adding information to the hook without the nominator's approval. Unless you are fixing a typo or grammatical issue, please leave a note at WT:DYK with the hook in question and your suggested alterations, and ping the nominator and DYK reviewer too. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, this is happening much too frequently and I am reverting your additions. If you feel they're necessary, please start a thread at WT:DYK and ping the nominator. Yoninah (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I explained the first addition at WT:DYK. (It may not be verbatim in the article, but it's still correct.) As for your second revert, if SA is better known than Sturmabteilung, then you should lead with the abbreviation. I removed it because I (like most readers?) am not familiar with either of them, and so one is just redundant to the other here. And we're making readers click on Medusozoa to figure out what in the hell it is, so why can't we make them click on Sturmabteilung? Modulus12 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the editors at ERRORS will go for just "SA", so that's why I left both in. Regarding the second hook, I'm fine with leaving an element of mystery in it and letting readers click on the bolded subject to find out more. We have so many of these species hooks a week; anyone who's interested knows where to look to find the answer. Yoninah (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent OTD edit

Thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Possessive of "United States". Thanks for raising the issue. Jmar67 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Today's featured article/October 20, 2018

It's great that you're taking a lot of interest in the Main Page. The following is my take on how TFA works (but rules can be changed at any time by discussion). Changing "twelfth" to "12th" is fantastic ... I do a check each month for MOS:NUMERAL violations, but I missed this one. Fixing any kind of violation of MOS or standard procedure in Main Page sections is welcome at any time. There's a gray area of "fiddly" edits, especially punctuation ... I think you'll find FAC and ERRORS people don't mind discussing those kinds of edits sometimes, but it's not their favorite thing to talk about. Before major changes, people really prefer discussion (at WP:ERRORS, or elsewhere). My talk page is always open for discussion about anything TFA-related, anytime. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to bring it up for discussion, because it's not of a level to be worth expending that effort. I don't want to waste people's time hashing out whether what Modulus12 thinks is slightly better wording is in fact so. I'd just like to make the change and see if anyone strenuously objects (for a reason other than "somebody might disagree with this in the future.") If forming a committee is required for every edit, then forget it. I'll just stop tinkering with the wording. I defer to your extensive experience with TFA blurbs; if the normal bold-revert-discuss cycle leads to too much outcry a few days later, then so be it. But I think the edit notice needs changing. "Likely to be controversial" is applied far beyond the common meaning of that phrase. It should say, "If this isn't your featured article, don't bother making any edits that don't have explicit consensus, because it will be reverted." Modulus12 (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You're misreading me; I'm not trying to shut you out. Give me a day or two; I'll come up with something. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've posted a relevant question at WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at WP:ERRORS ... I'm assuming that went the way you wanted. I'm just letting you know that I don't reply directly to most of the arguments made at ERRORS/TFA ... people are expecting me to stay out of the fray, to help me attempt to objectively assess which way the consensus is going (though I have my own opinions and I'm clearly involved). I just didn't want you to think I was inviting you to talk, then blowing you off by not responding. None of the regulars will think that. - Dank (push to talk) 00:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 9, 2018

The last relevant discussion at WP:ERRORS was here. I looked at how editors responded back then, and the current blurb looks good to me. Do you see any issues? - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Modulus12. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for fixing the Highway 58 (CA) article after vandals totally messed it up! :)

Pf1127 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 28, 2019

About this, the problem with WP:NUMERAL is that no two people will interpret "comparable" the same in all situations. So ... personally, I like your edit, but eventually someone will complain that it needs to be "thirteen" to parallel "five". - Dank (push to talk) 00:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, crap, I didn't realize they were in the same sentence. I never liked that rule and these numbers are so far apart as to maybe not apply, but yes, it's not worth the arguments. I can't self-revert because it's now full-protected; if you want to change it back, go ahead. Modulus12 (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, will do. I agree, I don't like any rule that's guaranteed to produce an endless stream of not-particularly-helpful edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

While I'm here ... your TFA edits are generally excellent. Much appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 01:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

ITN items

Hello,

Our longstanding practice is to place the item associated with the section's image above all others labeled with the same date (but not later dates). This doesn't necessarily affect the duration for which items appear, as the order can be inverted when the image is replaced. —David Levy 22:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@David Levy: Hmmm, first it's strange number formatting rules, and now this. That's a lot of "longstanding practices" that someone has forgotten to write down as an actual ITN rule anywhere... You can see how I might mistake them for errors. Modulus12 (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The aforementioned ITN convention is more of a custom than an actual rule. (The same is true of some other practices, such as rearranging same-date items to avoid listing items about similar events consecutively.) I believe it's noted somewhere, but not among the core documentation (whose relative brevity increases the likelihood of it being read).

Indeed, I understand why one might mistake this for an error. To be clear, the above explanation is not a criticism of your report. —David Levy 22:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2, 2019

Short version: it's time to hold a series of RfCs discussions to let people argue over blurb text. One effect is that that will make it easier for you to suggest as many changes as you want, and get feedback on those changes. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Your uses of "French" only refer to the army, and England and France could have been fighting in land that is today part of a third country. And if it wasn't "France" at the time, was it really "Aquitaine" at the time? The English called it Gascony... I guess I just interpreted the sentence as a modern-day locator. Not sure where you're going with ideas of RfCs, which sounds like way too much bureaucracy... Modulus12 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrasses

Actually SciShow Yotube videos are a good source!ConfidentFungus (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@ConfidentFungus: I took a second look and agree with you now. Also added one of the underlying citations to the article. Modulus12 (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nikki Reed

Do not add Somerhalder to Nikki Reed unless every other page or profile of her does. Her last name may LEGALLY Somerhalder, but she does not PUBLICLY go by it. Unless she changes it on IG, IMDB or Facebook, then you can add it. Kay girl 97 (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kay girl 97: I don't have an opinion on what the name in the lead sentence should be, or any of the article content for that matter. You may be entirely right. I just dropped by to fix the broken reference syntax, and noticed that you were berating an IP in ALL CAPS in an edit summary for the crime of not including a source, when they did include a source. That's not very pleasant behavior, and you can see how I would assume you just weren't looking closely before reverting. If you felt the source was insufficient, you should have specifically said why. Or, if this dispute with IPs continues, write "See Talk page" in the revert edit summary, and add a section to the article talk page clearly explaining your argument in more detail. Modulus12 (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Maria Callas

Apologies, I didn't even notice that - it's a bug in the script. I'll report. GiantSnowman 07:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving other Editors Comments

Regards your 'Fixed threading' Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Innican Soufou at 00:15, 1 May 2021. Though I used lynching as a starting point, the main argument/comment (by User:Berchanhimez) I was responding to now comes after my response. It's generally not okay to move anyone's comment, I respectfully request that you do not move my comments in future, unless you check first. Because other editors in the thread seem happy I am not sure if my comment can be moved back. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney: I did not move your comment; I re-arranged threads that happened to contain your comment. Here is the diff of where you put it, as a reply to JzG's 16:54 comment, and that's still where it is now. JzG's 07:48 comment has three replies. Inedible Hulk replied first. Then the threading was mangled when Sweet6970 replied in the wrong place and at the wrong indentation level. Then Berchanhimez replied using the reply-link script, but because of Sweet6970's incorrect indentation, Berchanhimez's comment is placed above instead of below Sweet6970. My edit rearranges those three reply threads into the correct order. Your reply to JzG, which was a reply to Sweet6970's comment, is just along for the ride. the main argument/comment (by User:Berchanhimez) I was responding to now comes after my response. Your comment was a response to JzG. If somewhere in there you are making reference to Berchanhimez's comment that is now lower on the page, that's OK. That's just the nature of Wikipedia threading, and I don't see how the meaning of your comment is changed in any way. Fixing indenting/layout problems is allowed under WP:TPO. Modulus12 (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I was indeed mostly responding to Berchanhimez's position that Babbit's death could be described as murder and agreeing with JzG position who made their comment while I was in the process of making mine, however I can easily see that my indent was wrong, it should have been at the same level as JzG's. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Moving comments at ANI

• I came here to advise you not to move other users' comments at ANI, and I see you've already been warned about this. Leave comments in the order they're made in. Don't try to move things to where you think makes logical sense, or to chronological order, or ... just don't touch other users' comments on that page. There's no benefit to clerking ANI whatsoever, and you're likely to move a reply that changes its meaning in a way that will make people angry. Please stop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Sigh... (1) I was never "warned" about anything previously. The discussion above with Bodney was more-so error and confusion on their part. (2) I am not "clerking" ANI. Like hundreds of other people, I read it, and if I'm flipping through the diffs I might as well clean up the messes I see. And there are plenty of layout train-wrecks I don't bother to fix for a few different reasons. (3) I was correcting the order. Lugnuts (like many other experienced editors, so I don't blame them personally) apparently still hasn't figured out how (or does know but can't be bothered) to put their replies in the correct place. Examine the timestamps and diffs for yourself. See Help:Talk pages#Indentation (linked from WP:Talk page guidelines), and my edits are justified under WP:TPO: Fixing layout errors. If you know of consensus somewhere that says editors are not obligated to thread their replies properly, then I will stop. Until then, I will continue to bring discussion pages into conformance with the guideline and standard practices when I come across them.

  you're likely to move a reply that changes its meaning in a way that will make people angry. Mmmm no. The comment is still indented under (and therefore replying to) you. The reply was made after ProcrastinatingReader, Levivich, and A.A Prinon had already replied to you, and therefore it goes below their replies. The only way I could change its meaning is if I make a mistake, but "Hey, don't do that, because you could make a mistake" is not how Wikipedia works. Modulus12 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  I see you've mistaken this for a suggestion, which it is not. Stop moving comments on that page, or you will be blocked from it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  You would unilaterally block me from the page after presenting a warning statement that contains zero links to policy or guidelines explaining why my edits are disruptive? I think admins are held to a higher standard than that. WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Or are you instead threatening to haul me to AN/ANI and ask the community to approve a block? I'm fine with the latter; we can go ask AN/ANI to review my edits right now if you want.

  What's funny about all this is you still haven't pointed to any actual problem. Lugnuts isn't here complaining. If he had originally put his reply where I moved it (the correct place), nothing at all would be amiss. No meaning would be changed or lost. You are threatening me with a block over a hypothetical problem where you assume I am not competent, and that's you not assuming good faith. Modulus12 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Complaint about ANI edit

• I have come here with the exact same purpose as Ivanvector, but i see you aren't taking the advice well; let me be specific, i made my comment on ANI exactly the way i intended to, and i do not appreciate having someone adjust it for me, even though they think they are doing the right thing. I can just about imagine circumstances in which "clerking" ANI would be acceptable; what you have done in several different threads, however, does not fall into those circumstances, so i seriously advise you not to do it again; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, LindsayH. I guess you are complaining about this edit of mine. I do not know what edit(s) you are referring to with i see you aren't taking the advice well, but the edit you appear to be complaining about was made on May 30, and Ivanvector did not show up here until May 31. (His block below is presumably based on my June 2 edits that aren't relevant to your complaint.) Now, surely it's quite obvious in your diff that you made two comments. You replied to Jason Rees (with the correct *: indentation), and you added a !vote to the discussion (with a a single *). These are different comments; they should both be signed separately. If other people reply to Jason Rees or your reply, it becomes unclear who wrote the fragment "Thank you for the ping, Jason." Ultimately, the content of the comments is irrelevant; comments must be signed. I feel that the WP:Talk page guidelines firmly back me up on this, and I believe a large majority of the community (maybe even Ivanvector) would agree with my edit. If I have misunderstood your complaint or the policies/guidelines, please let me know. If you have specific complaints about any of my other edits at ANI, I am happy to discuss them. Modulus12 (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents) for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Modulus12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Bad block, in violation of the blocking policy. In the block notice, Ivanvector links to WP:Disruptive editing, which states This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. If the reviewing admin looks just up the talk page at the discussion between me and Ivanvector, they can see Ivanvector presents a single diff, and links to no policies or guidelines (let alone fundamental ones) when telling me to stop doing what I'm doing. I did link a guideline and a Help page that explains and (IMO) justifies my edits, but Ivanvector refused to engage with these points or cite any consensus opposing my edits, and stopped replying. Ivanvector's argument above is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which, of course, is not a valid reason to threaten a block, or to implement one. Modulus12 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Made a small edit; Ivanvector linked no diffs, but diffs aren’t relevant; we both understood what edits were in question. Modulus12 (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have unblocked per the discussion below. This block was an unambiguous error on my part. 331dot's decline was in good-faith and a reasonable interpretation of the information available at the time; it is copied below, outside the template. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Original decline rationale: You were told that what you were doing was problematic, but persisted. You might have better luck if you first inquired as to if a post was written the way the person wished it to be written or not before adjusting it, or first discussing any perceived formatting issues with the editor involved instead of just changing it the way you think it should be. At least some of what you attempted to do would be fine except at least one editor involved told you their post was the way they wanted it and that they did not want it changed. I think a week block from a single page is appropriate, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC) }}

@331dot: What do you mean by except at least one editor involved told you their post was the way they wanted it and that they did not want it changed.? Yes, a very small number of my edits were reverted, but I have never touched those again. If a user insists on keeping their comments in non-compliance with guidelines and standards, I have let them.

Also, if I can rephrase my unblock request into a question, that would be “Are you 100% confident any reasonable editor would find my behavior disruptive, and this block would easily pass community scrutiny?”

If your answer is a firm “Yes”, then I guess it’s OK for Ivanvector to treat me like a common vandal, where the disruption is so obvious that he does not need to base his warnings and block in specific policy and consensus that says my edits are disruptive, and can instead just yell at me to stop and threaten a block if I don’t completely bow to his personal demands.

If your answer is anything but a firm “Yes”, then it was a bad warning and therefore bad block from Ivanvector, devoid of the requirements stated in the blocking policy that must be followed before blocking editors for good-faith edits.

And let’s save some more admin time if you still endorse the block: I give you my assurance I won’t clean up anything at ANI anymore, and request you lift the block so that (later today) I can compose a report at ANI seeking consensus on whether my edits are obviously disruptive and deserving of a block that bypasses the blocking policy. Modulus12 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

If you aren't going to clean up ANI any longer, the block can be permitted to expire since that is the only page you are blocked from- and if you have an urgent comment to make in the interim, you may use the talk page. You may also make another unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Can you clarify the sentence I asked about? Can you answer my question above? Is it a firm "Yes" or no? I have no desire to shop for another admin when my reasons for unblock remain the same, albeit rephrased. Would a new section at the main Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard be all right with either of you? I'm not blocked from there. Modulus12 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have anything else to say. I've said how you can proceed and if others believe I have erred I will accept a trout slap. I would advise against escalating this minor matter(a block from one page for a week, and typically most users have no need to be at that page unless asked) to AN, but that is your option. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that talk page layout is a minor matter (which is why I let every disagreement resolve how the complaining editor wanted it), but potential violations of the blocking policy are no minor matter. Thank you for your thoughts on the block; I will consider my options. Modulus12 (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll save you the trouble, I've unblocked you (courtesy ping 331dot). On reviewing your edits to ANI subsequent to my warning, you adjusted indents and signed unsigned edits, both of which are necessary and appreciated. You should not have been blocked for this, and I unreservedly apologize. However, I'm going to reiterate my advice not to move (which you did) nor edit (which you did not, apart from indenting and signing) other users' comments on that page. Wikipedia talk pages are not literal structured discussion forum threads, although that is the usual expectation on nearly any other website on the internet. Editors reply directly to comments mid-thread which already have replies, sub-threads break off to different indent levels, sometimes entire discussions are moved en masse to other pages. None of it is required nor expected to be in chronological order. If you see someone reply in an obviously wrong location, such as a reply to a comment that's in an entirely different thread, the best course of action is to advise them of the error, rather than to move the comment yourself. I can't remove the block from your log but I've done my best to indicate that it was in error. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I also apologize unconditionally. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology and unblock, Ivanvector, and I'm not one to get bent out of shape over not having a clean block log anymore. However, it seems we still disagree on the propriety of some of my edits, and community input would be useful, if only to prevent treading of the same path later. Furthermore, I think it's important to discuss potential admin misconduct in a more widely read community forum, even after an apology appears and the matter is "resolved" on a User talk page, because all members of the community can learn from it and become better editors, and my report is already 99% finished. I think I will be posting it shortly. Modulus12 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The standard nesting level conventions for discussions are described at Help:Talk pages § Indentation, with an example. Yes, you'll find people breaking these conventions at times, but they are the commonly-agreed upon standards at present. isaacl (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI

Hi. I have just closed the thread you raised on WP:ANI. I cannot see any means why HJ Mitchell would get sanctioned, and there are genuine reasons why we sometimes block users without comment. You may find discussions such as Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change helpful to see why.

Can I offer another bit of advice? A couple of editors also suggested to topic-ban you from ANI at the discussion I just closed. I'm not agreeing with that course of action just yet, but I think I need to tell you to stay away from ANI. We are primarily here to write an encyclopedia; and areas like ANI are best reserved for experienced administrators who are skilled in reducing disruption with the minimum of fuss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I did not ask for any sanctions. I asked for a review of the block. At the bare minimum, I was hoping talk-page access would be restored. Maybe convert the block to a warning. I'll respond to your other concerns directly at ANI. Modulus12 (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I echo Ritchie's advice? I wasn't aware of your history when you arrived on my talk page, and possibly assumed that you were a much more experienced editor who was more familiar with Wikipedia's social norms; I apologise if my frustration in explaining what is obvious to an experienced admin came across as patronising. ANI, and all administrative and internal functions, exist to serve the encyclopaedia; they're not an end in themselves. Our policies are not statutes, and enforcement of them is very much about the spirit and not the letter. Further, they are only concerned with what is best for the encyclopaedia, not with justice or due process or procedural correctness. In the spirit of friendly advice, I would implore you to spend more time in the mainspace working on improving the encyclopaedia, and less in project space on discussions purely internal to the project, especially ANI, which is already the second-most-edited page on the site. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There was an admin on your talk page, and what you said to him is what you said to me. Your block was not clear to him, and you largely ignored the talk-page access and notification concerns, and just kept providing more reasons for why the user must be a troll. (I guess I can't personally blame you for that, as everyone at ANI ignored those particular concerns as well.) You say the spirit of the policy is more important, but your block-option choices were the opposite of what the policy says, and so don't follow its spirit or letter. This can't be me, some poor new editor, misunderstanding cultural norms, because, again, there was an admin on your talk page confused as well. (I'm also not new and don't need to be given explanations of what an LTA is or what ANI is or what our primary goal here is.)

And your signature (Penny for your thoughts?) outright encourages commentary, so you're throwing mixed signals when you immediately start acting exasperated that I showed up to discuss something. Modulus12 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces (Wikipedia) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Prior post-block discussion

@RickinBaltimore: This seems like an over-reaction. I do not see how the bold edits were WP:POINT. Nobody has yet explained to me how the subjects I added in those edits are already covered (or not contradicted) by the blocking policy. This is the process by which we improve the blocking policy: I boldly edit, somebody reverts, we discuss on the talk page. Modulus12 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Oh, maybe I see it now, buried in the second paragraph: If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. Not sure how I was supposed to magically know that; nobody told me I'm disqualified from using WP:BRD at the relevant policy page. I waited until the discussion was closed, and then attempted to improve the policy in line with it. The edit notice at Wikipedia:Blocking policy says you may be bold in making minor changes to this page. I have now raised the concerns on the talk page. Hopefully that is OK with everyone. Modulus12 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Although, in the context of the whole WP:POINT page, that sentence is talking about disruptively applying policy, not editing policy. I'm obviously not disruptively going around blocking people with no talk-page notice or access because I'm mad that that's the consensus. And a single bold edit to a policy page also can't be disruptive editing, so the whole block rationale falls apart. (And I really have no idea what Continuing to disrupt WP:ANI in your blocking notice refers to. My useful pointer to my edits at the policy page? Surely that is a good thing. I want the people in the discussion at ANI to see/approve/revert/discuss the edits to the policy at the center of the issue. I don't want to hide anything.) Modulus12 (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Want some advice? Leave policy interpretation, policy building, and checking on admin actions, to more experienced editors. Do not involve yourself in any admin actions that do not involve you directly. Go help build some content for the encyclopedia instead. You do seem to be pretty good at content work, and I think you will help the encyclopedia (which you obviously care about) a lot more if you stick to that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC) @Boing! said Zebedee: I don't think you realize how humiliating a partial block from the Wikipedia namespace is, especially accompanied with personal attacks from others like "Just shut up and edit some articles, will you?". This sanction shouldn't even exist; it is insulting and degrading to tell someone they need to get back to slaving away in article space and are blocked from accessing or improving any of the resources in Wikipedia space. Because of one post about a block and a policy being in tension with each other, getting laughed at for that, and then after accepting that consensus and trying to improve the policy, immediately blocked for supposedly being WP:POINTy. Maybe we indef trolls with no warnings, but I sure deserved a little more WP:BEFOREBLOCK than what I got. Whatever mistakes I have made in this mess, they are not ones I have made before, or actions that I was told not to do. And I have seven years and 5,000 edits here; if that's not considered an "experienced" editor then I don't know what is. I have done my time in article space, I think I'm allowed to jump into project space (and I continue to edit articles). Are you forgetting that I competently and successfully pursued a report against a long-time admin who was clearly unable to use a basic tool correctly? I find it very disappointing that a single instance of me having just a little more good faith in people than admins do means I am some kind of fool or newbie who has no business discussing or editing the finer points of the blocking policy (the concerns shared by JBW), which we never got a chance to discuss at ANI. At this point the only future comments I am interested in on this talk page are those of RickinBaltimore explaining the exact edits at ANI that he believes constitutes disruptive editing, so that I may construct my appeal. Modulus12 (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC) I'm going to piggyback on what Boing said above. You do fine work with your editing. Just leave the admin areas alone, which you have been disruptive in. If the admin activity doesn't involve you, then don't get involved in it. Also, being told "Just shut up and edit articles" isn't a personal attack. I'll say it more politely: Use your editing talents where they are best utilized, on articles themselves. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC) I'm going to add one more comment, and I apologise if you really don't want to hear any more from me - just say so, and I will not post here any more. The point I want to make is that quantity of experience (as measured in years or edits) is not everything, and what is more is more important is skills and aptitude in various areas of contribution. Different people are good at different things, and I think we all do best when we stick to what we're good at. Some people are good at handling administrative work, with the case-by-case judgment that's needed when dealing with a very wide variety of people and situations. Others are better at developing content. And those two areas of contribution involve very different skill sets. From what I see, you possess strong skills in developing content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC) I appreciate the compliments from you two, but I really don't need encouragement on how to enjoy a new second-class-editor life. No thanks. An editor blocked from project-space is no editor. I will be appealing this block. Now, RickinBaltimore, can you please answer the following questions so I can narrow the issues in my appeal. The block rationale says Continuing to disrupt WP:ANI to make a WP:POINT, ... What edits at ANI are you referring to that constitute a pattern of disruptive editing? The HJ Mitchell report? The debate about the SNOW-close? The pointer to my edit at the policy page? At ANI you wrote the fact they have been brought to task about this WP:POINT editing shows they do not get it. Where or what edit was I "brought to task about this"? What are you specifically referring to here? Thanks. If you don't want to answer, just say so, so I can move forward. Modulus12 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC) I think that you would benefit from a serious, strategic think about what exactly you're ultimately trying to accomplish. When I look at your situation, this is what I see: a long, three-part ANI thread in which 0 people ever expressed support for you, and at least a half-dozen people directly criticized your behavior. Moreover, the longer it went on, the worse it went for you, culminating in the block. If I were in your place, reading this sequence of events, I would definitely not bang on about the same topics, or about appealing -- not because I thought the current state of affairs was good, or just, or even sensible, but because I am not a moron and so after getting scalded I don't immediately reach out to grab the same hot iron. Now, perhaps I misread you and your goal actually is to get indeffed via a drawn-out process that wastes your time and a bunch of other people's; I kind of doubt that, but it's what happens to people on WP who take maximalist positions about their entitlement to personal satisfaction in situations where they have been repeatedly described as disruptive. You may find a recent example here: 24rhhtr7 goes away for 5 days, nothing bad happens to them; they come back with a bunch of aggressive argumentation and they're indeffed in under 36 hours. Note also that you can disengage without agreeing that anything anyone has done or said to you is appropriate. --JBL (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC) JBL (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC) @JayBeeEll: It's funny you bring up that thread; it included an admin disruptively moving 24rhhtr7's comments around in a way that changed who they were addressing [1]. Not a big deal, I fixed it and moved on. Part of "what exactly I'm ultimately trying to accomplish" is being able to return to AN/ANI to clean up these messes. I haven't examined 24rhhtr7's edits, so I don't know the whole story there, but I would hope I wouldn't be indeffed for simply appealing this block. Modulus12 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Do you notice how no one has stepped forward to say, "Gosh, it's really helpful that Modulus12 is cleaning up ANI"? I wonder why that is. (Not really, though.) --JBL (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC) I didn't bring it up in an attempt to claim that I am critical to ANI functioning. My point is that we all make mistakes at ANI, a few of which can be considered by some to be mildly "disruptive". In the grand scheme of things, I don't think whatever mistakes I've made stand out as block-worthy. I (and 1,224 other page-watchers) like to read ANI, and if I am reading ANI, I might as well fix the mistakes I see. I'm sure I miss some of them; some are fixed before I see them; some I judge as not worth fixing and/or somebody will probably get mad if I change things, so I just let them go. (I don't want another "People are complaining on your talk page so you must be disruptive" mis-block.) Anyway, I'd rather not keep defending myself to random editors who show up here, so I'm going to focus on my appeal now. Modulus12 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC) References Appeal, etc. My appeal is below. I would like to exercise my right to appeal at WP:Administrators' noticeboard. I can't edit there, so someone (@RickinBaltimore, Boing! said Zebedee, and JayBeeEll:) will have to copy it there. Modulus12 (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I was indefinitely partial-blocked from the Wikipedia namespace two days ago by RickinBaltimore. I'll assume for this appeal that he really only intended to block me from AN and ANI and maybe a policy page. Actually blocking someone from all of project-space (which contains many article processes, WP:VP, WP:RFCs, etc. that have nothing to do with admins) is a ludicrous idea. You might as well just normally block them. The stated block reason was: Continuing to disrupt WP:ANI to make a WP:POINT, moved to changing the blocking policy again to make a WP:POINT Here is a permalink to the ANI discussion that precipitated this block. A week ago I was an editor in good standing, so I hope you will include an assumption of good faith when considering my actions. I was not blocked by the community, and I am arguing that the block was improper, so the question I'm asking you to answer is "Did my edits constitute disruptive editing at a level that requires a block to protect ANI?" While skimming through ANI diffs, I saw an editor made some bizarre edits, possibly trolling but not maliciously so. It got them indef-blocked, but curiously no notice of the block was put on their user talk page and the normal methods of appeal were cut off. The blocking policy says much the opposite (details are at ANI). To my knowledge at the time, the only accounts we treated this way were obvious LTAs and confirmed sockpuppets. So I went to HJ Mitchell's talk page looking for answers. Another admin joined me with similar concerns about lack of notice and talk-page access. HJ Mitchell clarified that it wasn't an LTA, just a generic troll, mostly ignored the contradictions with policy and instead focused on why the user should be blocked. With all the benefit of hindsight, I now know the answer to the contradiction is "Well, it's actually acceptable to block run-of-the-mill trolls like this. Sometimes we don't do what policy says is mandatory. And there's nothing wrong with the policy saying the complete opposite of what we do: WP:NOTBURO." Why the ANI regulars prefer this state of things, I do not know. And I'm clearly not the only one confused; admin JBW was confused too. HJ Mitchell did not give me this explanation of reality, or anything like it, so I did what you're supposed to do when unsatisfied: I brought the block to ANI for community discussion. I don't want to relitigate that discussion; I mention all of this only to show that my ANI post stood on a rational foundation. It is a verifiable, true statement to say that the block options and the policy were in contradiction. And faulty posts of this type are not something I have ever made at ANI before. Therefore, the post can't be considered disruptive. The discussion was SNOW-closed in 10 hours, before I could add any more input. No one really addressed the policy contradictions. I defended myself from accusations over the course of six comments, and asked for a re-open. Somebody mentioned WP:BLUDGEON, I may not agree with it, but I respected it, so I stepped away. Is RickinBaltimore, or anyone else, claiming this discussion was disruptive? I don't really see how; it's all rather tame by ANI standards. Now, I could have just dropped it, told myself "I guess I'm too dumb to understand all this blocking stuff." That's not how we improve the encyclopedia, though. If the consensus is that admins can do the opposite of what policy says (which is what the consensus appeared to be), then we should change the policy. I'm allowed to be bold in doing so. So I took a stab at it. One edit [2][3] (split by section). And I placed a pointer at ANI so that everyone there could consider my edit and contribute to improving the policy [4]. And then I was blocked. They say it's WP:POINT. WP:POINT says to not do disruptive things to make a point. WP:BRD is not disruptive, and I was not making a point; I was trying to improve the policy. How can a single policy edit, and a single pointer at ANI, be disruptive? I really don't know how. Nobody ever told me not to edit policy. Ritchie333 (who SNOW-closed) came to my talk page to tell me to "stay away from ANI" but I don't think he meant my own post, or he would have blocked me earlier. The sub-discussion about me was closed by a non-admin and did not say I was disruptive or give me any instructions. Two admins expressed their opinion in the original discussion that I should be banned from ANI. But that's not a warning, and they didn't block me. I was editing in good faith, and therefore deserved reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking (WP:BEFOREBLOCK). That was not given. So what do we have here: One possibly misguided, but rational, ANI post One reasonable-length ANI discussion about myself One policy edit One pointer to the policy edit at ANI These four things, all pretty unique first-of-a-kind contributions from me, are not individually disruptive, and together, are not a pattern of disruptive editing. There was no indication, anywhere, that I intended to spam ANI with posts or comments. Likewise, a single edit to policy, made with good faith, and now being discussed on the talk page, is not disruptive. Therefore, the block was improper. Thanks for taking the time to consider my appeal. Modulus12 (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC) You don't have the "right" to appeal at WP:AN as this is not a ban, but a partial block. You should be making an unblock request in the normal fashion as instructed by the block notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC) @Bbb23 Uninvolved user/ANI stalker with a question. From this ANI discussion, I thought the consensus was that it's acceptable (though inadvisable) to appeal via the noticeboards. Am I misreading that? If not, then apologies for wasting your time, and thanks in advance for your help! EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC) In that brief discussion I see no consensus. It would require a lot more than that to change policy. That said, I've seen pblocked editors do it, mainly because they can at a technical level. Modulus12 is in the awkward position that the block itself prevents them from doing it. I didn't say this before, but, frankly, I think that an appeal at AN would more likely hurt Modulus12 than help them. The first discussion boomeranged, and an appeal, with so little insight into their own behavior, might transform this limited block to a sitewide block.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Bbb23 Got it; thank you for clearing that up! I appreciate you taking the time to help educate a newbie like me. Thanks again! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC) @Bbb23: You should partial-block yourself from my talk page, attempt to edit it, and read what the block notice says: This partial block may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard, on your talk page, or by UTRS. Or reference the blocking policy: The affected editor may request an unblock [from a partial block] following the procedures listed in § Unblocking, using the {{unblock}} template, or appealing at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Modulus12 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC) You're correct. I was looking at the explanatory supplement, quoted in the ANI discussion and which is not policy, but it says so in the policy as well. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC) For what it's worth coming from me, your appeal as-posted, stands no chance of success whatsoever. You have easily a dozen admins and experienced editors watching this page or who commented in the original ANI thread who will not read your statement because it describes events they were a part of. They will endorse the block. Nobody who follows will read it because it's nearly 1,000 words, none of which explain why the block is unnecessary. They will see the long list of endorses and just sign on the end. Somebody comes along and closes it with a butt joke and all of a sudden RickinBaltimore's unilateral action that a reasonable argument could probably get him to reduce in a week or two becomes the product of community consensus. Call me a cynic, but I've seen it many times before. You would be better off focusing on something else for a while, no matter how much it grieves you, and revisiting this when everyone's heads are cooler. I'm logging off for the night otherwise I would offer to copy your appeal to AN if you still wanted to proceed. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC) @Jayron32 and Serial Number 54129: Can one of you copy my appeal to WP:Administrators' noticeboard? All of the experts who suddenly like to hang out on my talk page refuse to do it for one reason or another. Modulus12 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Hi again Modulus12, hope you don't mind another few thoughts from me. If you post the above appeal as an unblock request, I don't think it will succeed. I think you need to read the room... and by that I mean examine what everyone is saying to you and let it sink in. How many people who have commented so far are in agreement with the approach you have taken on this issue? None (no, not even JBW, judging by their later comments). How many think you went over the top on this minor issue and wasted a lot of time? Everybody. At the moment, it is looking like there is a consensus that you should not engage yourself in admin activities (unless they affect you directly). You can continue trying to right the wrong that you believe has been done to you. Or you can accept the consensus and move on, even if you believe it is unfair. In my experience, only one of those approaches is likely to be successful. So what would I do now in your position? I'd get back to article work for a few months, then make an unblock request along the lines of "I accept the consensus and I will not engage myself in admin activities (unless they affect me directly)." Anyway, that's just me, and you obviously have to decide yourself how to proceed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC) @Boing! said Zebedee: consensus that you should not engage yourself in admin activities I was crucified on the basis of one post where I (maybe vociferously) discussed a block versus policy. I didn't know the rule was "If you bring a single admin action up for discussion and a few people say it's OK, and you don't just immediately shut up and accept that, you will be blocked for being disruptive". If I knew that, I probably wouldn't have ever brought up anything. Probably nobody would. Because that's an extreme chilling effect on speech around here. I don't see RickinBaltimore's unilateral block as proof of consensus. My appeal will establish whether there is consensus. I understand that there's probably a half-dozen editors already ready to endorse the block. Just because something is an uphill battle doesn't mean it should never be attempted. You may be predicting SNOW at AN, but I still have a right to appeal. And in regard to the rest of your message, I have told you repeatedly that I am not interested right now in your coaching on how to most subserviently accept this block without appealing. There will be plenty of time after this appeal for such discussion. Modulus12 (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Such an astoundingly bad appeal on so many levels. —JBL (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Save it for AN, JayBeeEll. You know I did not ask for you to place your opinion on it right here, and you know this nonconstructive statement serves only to insult me. Go away. Modulus12 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I'm going to think for a bit. Cancel my requests for an appeal for now. Modulus12 (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC) A break I read HJ Mitchell's latest comment here [5], thought about it, and as much as I wish it were the opposite, his frank assessment of what will happen is probably right. (Other people tried to tell me that, but I guess this one finally sank in.) So I'll save you from going through the motions and we'll just skip to the end. I spent the last two days thinking about where I want to go from here, and I'm confident now that it's time for a break. I don't really want to think about Wikipedia for a while. A few parting thoughts: Some people have suggested I just forget about this and focus on editing articles. I've been told that "Just shut up and edit some articles, will you?" is not a personal attack. I guess you have to actually be in my situation, partial-blocked and then reading that comment, to feel it stab at the heart of your sense of self-worth and dignity. It implies that your thoughts are not welcome, that you are only good for mindless content editing (because mindless content editing is mostly all I do). I'm sure Phil Bridger didn't intend all of that, but if you want an explanation for why I can't really find the energy to contribute right now, why thinking about this predicament just gives me a general feeling of disgust, there you go. I still stand by my appeal. Yeah, it's long and wordy, but the blocking admin kind of came out of nowhere and hasn't clarified anything for me about why he did it. The appeal had to be that way to fully explain my own actions in order to show that the block was improper. In my appeal, I tried to focus on my own behavior. But I also just can't shake the disbelief that whatever mistakes I made are disruptive editing on a level above the mistakes, and the jokes, and the endless arguing in circles that is normally present at ANI. And not just that, but disruption on a level where RickinBaltimore (and, I presume, the community) feels I am editing in bad faith. No matter how I re-read WP:DE and WP:BLOCK, I just don't see it. Maybe there is just something inexplicable about ANI or Wikipedia in general that I just don't get. If my attitude and understanding of policy is completely divergent from the community's attitude and understanding of policy, then the block is probably for the best right now. What seems to have often got me into disputes is fighting with the purple boxes. I don't understand the obsession with closing discussions as quickly as possible. Editors want fairness. I'm sure admins don't see themselves as being unfair when they SNOW-close a discussion with the result that will obviously occur, but it creates the perception of unfairness. Editors want to lose in a fair fight, and a SNOW-close can feel like an unfair fight. WP:SNOW has its uses, especially in non-controversial situations. But I think, somewhere over time, it has morphed into being interpreted as permission to close any discussion where you are sure of the outcome. And that's just not what it should be. I think some situations can be defused by letting the minority tire itself out. If they are arguing in good faith, then let them plead their case. Consider leaving a discussion open a reasonable amount of time, especially on request. A lot of people do not edit around the clock. Basically, I just hope you read everything written at WP:SNOW. HJ Mitchell, I apologize for whatever stress I caused by singling out your block. It really was just the first one of this nature I stumbled across. JBW, you might regret ever having crossed paths with me, and I wouldn't blame you for it, as it seems I've bungled this whole thing and induced another admin to attempt to shame you. But thank you for speaking up on HJ Mitchell's talk page. That is something that the other 90-or-so page watchers did not do, and maybe this whole thing could have been avoided if they did speak up. I think that's pretty much all I have to say. I didn't write all this because I think my leaving is a big deal, or because anyone has to care about my opinions. In all likelihood, it probably looks like a bunch of rambling followed by a rage-quit. Maybe somewhere a ways down the road, when my frustration has gone away, I might get the urge to start editing articles again. Until then, farewell. Modulus12 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC) For what it's worth, my suggestion that you edit articles was not intended to be disparaging. Personally, I'd much rather edit the mainspace than the project space. I find article work much more interesting and much more fulfilling than any amount of time spent at ANI. I hope you'll return and find something you're passionate about that isn't ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: I presume you're still standing by this block? I'd like to renew my previous request for all of the diffs that you believe constitute disruptive editing that led to the block. The block reason was Continuing to disrupt WP:ANI to make a WP:POINT, moved to changing the blocking policy again to make a WP:POINT. I guess you would definitely include these three: [6] [7] [8]. What other ANI edits were disruptive, if any? Thanks. Modulus12 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, wasn't really around much this weekend. As for your block, those edits I would agree were in part are what led to them. Honestly, I'm comfy with lifting your block at this point. Blocks aren't designed to punish, but to prevent behavior that is not beneficial to Wikipedia. I just ask, PLEASE, if you are going to make any changes to a policy page like with the blocking policy page example, that there is clear consensus first to do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Surely you could have just came to my talk page (or the policy talk page) to discuss the edit and whether the ANI discussion was "clear consensus" to make such a change? Did you think I was just going to start edit-warring with Bbb23 after being reverted? When have I ever edit-warred? How can a single edit to a policy page be disruptive? How can a pointer at ANI be disruptive? I didn't re-open the discussion; I didn't ask anything of anybody. I made a simple note in case anyone cared about collaborating at the policy page. That constitutes disruption to the point of requiring an immediate, indefinite block from the entire project-space? For an editor who has been here for years with thousands of good-faith contributions?

I still think the block was illegitimate from the start per the relevant policies, and I still don't believe I ever did anything wrong. Other people more-or-less bullied me out of appealing it, that's not your fault, and it was my own decision to give up and leave. But now I think with a new, concise appeal, this block doesn't stand up to public scrutiny. I'm asking for all of the diffs to show just how small a basis this whole block is built on.

If you want to moot the whole thing by removing the block now, I'm willing to drop the matter and move on. I've cleared my watchlist and have no intention of reading or editing AN/ANI anymore. After "ANI doesn't care that the admin action contradicts policy, but is also very angry if you try to change the policy to match their consensus", I'm done trying to play a rigged game. I've read enough of ANI to know that the regular crowd happily ignores policy at its convenience and "doesn't see the need for sanctions" when someone with a lot of friends is under scrutiny. And too many admins indulge them. Editors without any friends can be blocked by whatever pissed-off admin wanders by, and nobody much cares. You guys can keep the blocking policy in whatever messed-up state ANI prefers it; I've made my last comment at the talk page. I'll give this block appeal one last go (if you won't remove it), and then I just want to quietly edit article-space in peace. Modulus12 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Just now noticed you had already unblocked me before I wrote that whole rant. (For whatever reason, Wikipedia doesn't seem to notify someone that they are unblocked other than in the watchlist, which I haven't been paying attention to.) I initially read your reply as if you were only considering unblocking but hadn't decided yet. Anyway, thanks for the unblock and ignore my ranting. Modulus12 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)