User talk:Darkfrog24: Difference between revisions

Invitation

WikiProject Zoroastrianism We invite you to join WikiProject Zoroastrianism. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Zoroastrianism related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the other participants or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 22:55, 26 March 2013‎ User:Amadscientist

Mail call

Hello, Darkfrog24. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2016 Community Wishlist discussion or IdeaLab discussion about letting users restrict who can send them email.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

It is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool, so we hope you join the discussion.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

@SPoore: My general philosophy is "only create new rules or features if there is a problem that doing so would solve." We don't want things to get overengineered around here. If people are receiving harassing emails from new accounts, which I suppose are sockpuppets, then this is a good idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

On record:

I would like to be unblocked so that I can file my scheduled appeal at ARCA or some other on-Wiki venue of your choosing. I understand that I am not allowed to post anywhere on Wikipedia but ARCA and my talk page until the block is officially lifted. EDIT: And this includes J. Wales' talk page.

Alternately, because it has one year since the block was imposed (February 2016), and it was, at least at that time, an AE action, please consider declaring it a normal block rather than an AE block, and I will proceed to the normal unblock system.

It came up last time that there was some issue with it not being either an AE block or a normal block any more. If this is the case, if the jurisdiction has changed, please put a post on my talk page telling me the precise Wikipedia-rule status of my block so that I may deal with it per established regulations. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Just following up on the email you sent to ArbCom. As the portion of your block protected as an arbitration enforcement action has expired you are free to appeal your block as normal. That is, as a normal administrative block, either on your talk page (using {{Unblock}} or via UTRS. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Darkfrog24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am told I was blocked because the way I was seeking to have another sanction, a topic ban, lifted was disruptive. I will now seek to have it lifted through official channels as stipulated at WP:TBAN. If the relevant authorities believe I should have to do something not usually required of sanctioned editors, the thing to do is for them to log in and order me to do it. I've come to suspect I was instead/also blocked because of my interactions with a specific other user. He's posted to my userspace once or twice since then; I deleted his posts without answering. Either way, I have it covered. I have never contested that I am required to obey sanctions until they are lifted. I have made zero attempts at block evasion. I have never used sock puppets in my life, on any website. I have also not edited Wikipedia while not logged in. I've spent the time since being blocked making contributions to other parts of Project Wiki, all without disciplinary action. I translated most of the Euryarchaeota subcategory into Spanish, where I was unsolicitedly nominated for autoverificado status. I made corresponding contributions to Wikidata. I've drafted dozens of articles for Wikinews, where I was awarded the teamwork barnstar and one new guy wrote me a very nice note about how I made him/her feel welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request is stale. It has failed to convince any administrator to lift the block. You are welcome to make another, significantly different, unblock request if you still believe the block is inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@PhilKnight: Please scroll up to just above my appeal text and read the post by Callanecc. I was careful to confirm that this was a normal block before using the {{Unblock}} template. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

<facepalm> I'll undo my review. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. These matters can get complicated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Hey, PhilK, the review looks properly reverted here on my talk page, but is this unblock request still showing up on the list or wherever it was that you found it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

(tpw) yep, when the review was reverted the unblock request was restored to Category:Requests for unblock which is transcluded to the admin dashboard and the backlog page. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder what it is, then. I don't know if I've ever seen {{Unblock}} take more than ten days before, holiday or no holiday.

I am wondering why you were the one to answer, though. According to Callanecc, this isn't an ArbCom matter. Why would you even know I'd asked Phil a question? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Your talkpage is on my watchlist, given we've had previous conversations. Happy to take it off. And no, it's not an Arbcom matter. It's up to any passing admin who picks it out of the unblock queue. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so you just have a habit of putting people's talk pages on your watchlist whenever you have a conversation with them and it has nothing to do with me specifically. All right. Thanks for answering my question. And poor Philliphw; 22 days! Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: I am at a bit of a loss as to what else is wanted. Can you give me any insight into what information might be missing from my appeal? I don't want to repeat the same content and bore everyone, but I don't want to leave out anything relevant either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I checked your contribution history and judging by what you said to some other applicants, it looks like what your decline text is your standard boiler plate for long-waiting blocks and not any reaction for or against anything I said in my appeal. Is that the case? Because I did appeal right before a big U.S. holiday and I think that, not anything I did or didn't say, might be the reason no one dug in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Almost there

Drmies I was all set to unblock. It looks like the ArbCom sanction has ended. Is there anything I should know first.? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not that I know of, Dlohcierekim; Callanecc's Nov 17 email to Darkfrog on behalf of ArbCom (copied above) is the most recent thing I found. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Darkfrog24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am told I was blocked because the way I was seeking to have another sanction, a topic ban, lifted was disruptive. I will now seek to have it lifted exclusively through official channels as stipulated at WP:TBAN. I've come to suspect I was instead/also blocked because of my interactions with a specific other user. He has since been ordered not to speak to me and I have not responded to his few posts here. Either way, I have it covered. I will obey the topic ban until it is lifted. In the meantime, I have plans to return to my work at RSN, project Game of Thrones and I have a specific article I want to write. I have made zero attempts at block evasion. I have never used sock puppets in my life, on any website. I have also not edited Wikipedia while not logged in. I've spent the time since being blocked making contributions to other parts of Project Wiki, all without disciplinary action. I translated most of the Euryarchaeota subcategory into Spanish, where I was unsolicitedly nominated for autoverificado status. I made corresponding contributions to Wikidata. I've drafted dozens of articles for Wikinews, where I was awarded the teamwork barnstar and one new guy wrote me a very nice note about how I made him/her feel welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Based on this edit-- "And no, it's not an Arbcom matter. It's up to any passing admin who picks it out of the unblock queue., and in light of previous decline being procedural only, I am boldly granting the unblock, as the reason for the block appears to have ended. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Dlohcierekim:. I'm still pretty shellshocked from this whole matter. I wish you a pleasant December. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Good luck Darkfrog. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: For reference, could you summarize or link to the editing restrictions that apply to Darkfrog24, so as to avoid any confusion going forward? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades This is all very confusing to me, in that I thought ArbCom was done with him. It would be helpful if someone familiar with the case could do that or point us in the right direction. Throughout this whole fraught unblock process, no one said, "maybe but these are the restrictions". Can you help us out with this, Darkfrog? You should know better than I. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I have it below. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions

"In January 2016, Darkfrog24 was topic-banned from from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted". I presume this TBAN to still be in force. I presume that Darkfrog24 "either understand[s] the terms of the tban or agree[s] to stop disruptively relitigating it". I further presume them understanding, "They are very strongly advised to focus [any] appeal on their future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of their topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas." -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dlohcierekim as to the sequence of events. Darkfrog24 had filed an ARCA request in November 2016 to appeal their AE block. By declining to act then, and by allowing yesterday's unblock to be decided by admins generally, the committee seems to have given back the question of Darkfrog24's editing rights to AE and to the community. The remaining sanctions on Darkfrog24 come from AE. For those sanctions, see the three AE links included in the body of the motion, or look at the summary at Wikipedia:DSLOG#Article titles and capitalisation. The remaining topic ban is the one in DSLOG: Darkfrog24 is indefinitely topic banned from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including his and other's user talk pages. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016). Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

Since the 12 months have expired, Darkfrog24 could technically appeal their topic ban at AE now, though the committee advised them to first 'establish a successful record of productive contributions in other areas'. If Darkfrog24 were content to resume normal editing there shouldn't be much trouble, but the thing which seems to have led to their previous indef block was their campaign against the actions taken at AE. (The committee stated in their motion that 'the disruptive behavior, in the form of repeated relitigation of the circumstances of the topic ban, has continued'). Darkfrog24 would be well advised to put these matters behind them and get on with their work, if they can. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston, please note that WP:TBAN still says that it is improper to bait topic-banned editors. When you say "Darkfrog24 was campaigning," I feel you are trying to get me to say "No I wasn't." When someone says, "Darkfrog24 is a dirty liar who eats babies and deserves to be punished," they are daring me to say "No I'm not." When you make posts like these, I feel like you're trying to trick me into breaking rules.

My normal editing includes WT:MoS. I look forward to resuming my work there as soon as the topic ban is lifted. Since there is no enforcing admin any more, I plan to appeal it at AE as stipulated in the standard rules. If there is something that you or the rest of ArbCom feel I must be required to do or should not be allowed to do, order me to do/not to do it. When you say "advise," it looks like you mean that it is up to me and I won't be penalized for choosing my own timeline. "Order" is another matter. So is it advice or is it an order?

@Dlohcierekim: I was blocked after making this post, which was addressed to the person who was then the enforcing admin of the topic ban. The AE thread in which I was blocked is archived here. If there is any other information you need, please ask, but I must request that you also specifically give me permission to answer you. Regarding the topic ban, I will add that I was specifically given permission to edit Wikipedia articles as I see fit, specifically including quotation marks and other style matters. So I am allowed, for example, to correct the punctuation of any article, but if someone asks me what the rationale was or which reference works I consulted, I'm not allowed to answer them on Wikipedia until the topic ban is lifted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If we check the DSLOG, it appears that User:Thryduulf enacted your last AE topic ban from the manual of style. Thryduulf is recently active. Why do you believe that 'there is no enforcing admin anymore?' EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

At one of my appeals, Thryduulf said he was quitting as enforcing admin. I asked him/ArbCom to appoint a replacement but no one did.

I note that your current post is all business. That is appropriate and I thank you for any effort it took. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Responding to the ping and message on my talk page, I don't understand from a very brief read of this section what is being asked of me (I haven't got time right now to read the other sections). If my input is required, please clarify what input is desired and I'll respond when I get chance (which might not be until Friday UK time). Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has been asked of you. I'd rather you didn't post here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Darkfrog24. "My normal editing includes WT:MoS"? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this sounds perilously close to relitigating the TBAN and all it inherit. A TBAN does not require a cop watching your every move. In my understanding, the TBAN is still in effect. I should have been clearer. My conditions on unblocking you are that you act as if the TBAN is still in effect. That you do not seek to have the TBAN lifted until six months from now. That you receive no further blocks. That if anyone "baits you" on the matter that you not engage them, referring to this post as the reason. Please, please use this opportunity to edit any area of this vast encyclopedia not covered by these conditions. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I fear that Dlohcierekim may have been snookered just a little bit by the unblock request. Darkfrog24's most recent block (neglecting the various unblock/reblock cycles for appeals) comes from this AE filing, closed by User:Spartaz in February 2016 with the annotation,

Darkfrog24 is blocked indefinately until they either understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it.

The December 2016 ArbCom motion simply imposed a moratorium on Darkfrog24's endless attempts to redefine and relitigate the minutiae of their topic ban, their violations of that topic ban, and their appeals of the ensuing blocks. While the ArbCom motion has now lapsed, the reason for the underlying indefinite block has not. The ArbCom's recent clarification served only to indicate that they had returned responsibility for decision-making (with respect to Darkfrog24's block and topic ban) to the community, not to nullify the existing block and ban. I suspect that Dlohcierekim may have over-interpreted statements regarding the lapse of ArbCom's restriction on Darkfrog24's appeals as an indication that the rationale for the underlying block had similarly lapsed.

Darkfrog24 should probably enjoy this early Christmas present, and just get down to constructive editing in compliance with their topic ban. The stubborn determination to ignore good advice unless it is phrased as an "order" does not bode well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: I hope not. Not snookered, I mean. This is a great opportunity to shake off the past and leap forward into a newer, clearer, brighter day! -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I hope that your faith isn't misplaced, and that Darkfrog24 takes the ArbCom's advice (from the motion) to heart:

"She is very strongly advised to focus that appeal on her future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of her topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas."

While a record of productive contributions isn't an absolute requirement, I can't imagine that an appeal would be successful without it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim:, we seem to be on the same page: I consider the topic ban a separate sanction and it's my understanding that an unblocking admin like yourself does not personally have the authority to lift a topic ban. I've been considering it still in force this whole time, even while I was still blocked, even here on my talk page going back. I've already resumed editing, and you'll notice I haven't so much as said hello to my friends and colleagues at WT:MoS. As I said in my first request, I have never contested that I am required to obey it until it is lifted. If I were topic banned from articles on President Kennedy because the admins had decreed that he was a fictional character of my own invention and that I had lied lied lied about him being real as part of some evil plan, I would still be required to obey it until the matter could be cleared up. But of course I would want the matter cleared up.

When I said "just order me to do it," I did have "if you require a specific timeline, say so" in mind. I wouldn't mind if you shortened it to fewer months, but you can call that a yes. At least if someone at AE says "Why didn't you appeal right away? Looks like snookering to me!" I can point to this. One of the twists in this case is I'm concerned that I could face real-world legal action if I do anything that could be interpreted as a confession to the wrong thing.

Ten, you guys have established that you don't want disruptive re-litigation. Please refrain from re-accusation. More generally, I must insist that you not accuse me of anything at all unless I am allowed to defend myself. When you talk about what a terrible person you think I am, I feel like you want me to say "No I'm not!" I have already resumed my longstanding productive edit history. I'm afraid someone's already started the article I planned to write but I've made some good contributions. Vive le froggy!

As for "advice" vs "orders," I think we can all agree that there's been too much miscommunication. I don't want to be punished for disobeying an order that I mistook for advice. It's less important which page we're on so long as it's the same one.

Because I've been treated like I said no when I really said yes before, I'll repeat: YES I consider the topic ban still in force and YES I agree to D's six-month timeline. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Methanocaldococcus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate (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) 18:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Methanothermobacter marburgensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethyl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@MONGO: Oh my God! Thank you. I love barnstars. I hope it works out. I was very glad to see DGG at least entertaining the idea of making AE less dysfunctional. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sammy Sosa source

Hello, what is left to close the Sammy Sosa Haitian ancestry source? Thank you --Osplace 13:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Re

To this. In case you did not notice, Arbcom is accepting a Motion, which is exactly the opposite to the suggestion by DGG. It tells: Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. This is an explicit support of the "consensus required" restriction invented by Coffee and of any other restrictions that may be unilaterally invented by any individual administrator in a future because he believes this is "necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". I personally do not care too much. It is precisely the purpose of Arbcom to establish the rules. My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It's already passed with only five votes? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Only two additional votes remain. I am telling that contrary to claims by some other contributors the DS system is actually working and needed, although it could be improved by setting up a set of specific editing restrictions, so that complex and divisive restrictions by individual admins, like the "consensus required", would not be possible. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. What do you want to talk about? Or are you updating everyone who participated in that thread? I thought the whole point of AE was that enforcing admins didn't have to get consensus and could punish whoever they wanted without having to convince anyone else.

Per Specifico, it seems there is considerable difference in view as to what exactly is wrong with AE. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews

In my opinion, this is the best way to drive traffic to Wikinews. I was just about to ask if others do it. Cheers and thanks for the surfing article (but wow, what a beast to review). --SVTCobra (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd been planning to add a sister link, but I was waiting for review to be complete. Thanks for putting in the time. I was worried that one would age out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the main problem with Wikinews. The long/technical articles are daunting for any reviewer. It's much easier to grab a 3 paragraph article with 2 sources. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua

On 26 January 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Zanhe (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Mu-ming Poo

On 17 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mu-ming Poo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mu-ming Poo led a team of scientists that created the world's first primate clones with the same technique used to create Dolly the sheep? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mu-ming Poo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mu-ming Poo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Biological theories of dyslexia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fovea

Dyslexia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fovea

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for your 3O. I have written a response on Talk:SeaTac/Airport station. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for reasons described in your declined appeal, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Additional sanctions put in place: Another appeal may not be launched sooner than one year from today. Any future appeal that does not exclusively address why the topic ban is not currently needed should be declined with a block imposed. Additionally, Darkfrog24 is blocked for one month for topic ban violations and failure to drop the stick. An indefinite one-way interaction ban with SMcCandlish is also imposed - Darkfrog24 is banned from interacting with and/or commenting on or about SMcCandlish. The interaction ban sanction may not be appealed until after a successful topic ban appeal has taken place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

So you're telling me that SMcCandlish can badmouth me all he wants, make whatever claim about me he wants, and I'm not allowed to say "leave me alone"? He can say "Darkfrog24 murdered President Kennedy; KILL DARKFROG NOW!! and I don't get to say "no I didn't"? Guys, this puts me in fear for my safety. Make this two-way or just lift it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)